Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

METALS SOCIETY BILL [Lords]

TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Royal Ordnance Factory, Blackburn

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will ensure that adequate work is given to ROF Blackburn to compensate for any possible loss of employment due to Government policy with regard to procurement of fusing systems.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of State for Defence, in view of the Government's decision to divert electronic fuse production, from ROF Blackburn to private industry, if he will now publish the Leitch Committee's report and the estimates he has made of cost savings, with a view to ensuring public knowledge of the evidence on which this change of policy is based.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): As I indicated in the Defence debate on 10th May, we have been giving close thought to the position of ROF Blackburn in respect of future orders for fuses.
We have now decided that the factory will remain within the field of consideration for all orders for new fuses for shells, bombs and mines. This includes electronic fuses. The right hon. Lady, the hon. Member and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen

(Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) have been in touch with me about this, and I shall be replying in more detail within a day or so.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted that he has reconsidered the conclusions he outlined in his letter to me of 10th April? Can we now have a categoric assurance from him that, since he has admitted the capability of ROF Blackburn to operate in the electronic fuse market, it will now have complete equality and freedom with private industry in tendering for electronic fuse production?

Mr. Gilmour: I believe that that assurance is envisaged in my answer.

Mr. Davidson: May I thank the Minister for his helpful and quick reply, which will bring great pleasure to the workers at this Royal Ordnance factory? Will he agree to take whatever steps are necessary—if they should be found necessary—to strengthen the design team at ROF Blackburn? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend and I consider that the team is adequate?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Member and his right hon. Friend have assured me that the design capability is already adequate. Any increase in staff is a matter for the ROF board.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity to be fair to firms that will be tendering for this sort of work in future? Will he consider modifying his preferred source policy so that redundancies which might occur in my constituency will be avoided?

Mr. Gilmour: The answer to both questions is "Yes".

Building Site Fatality (Deepcut)

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is aware of the accidental death of James Flynn on 14th March while working on a building site at the new Army married quarters in Aisne Road, Deepcut and what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence, and also to help and to compensate the bereaved family.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am, of course, aware of the


accidental death of Mr. Flynn and I would like to take this opportunity of extending my sympathy to his family.
The ranges nearby were closed immediately the accident was reported and will remain closed until further notice. A board of inquiry has been convened to examine fully the wider and long-term aspects of range safety in this area.
The solicitor acting on behalf of the deceased's family has given notice of a formal claim for damages and this will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the third incident in the past five years? Is he further aware that, although the previous incidents have not involved loss of life, they have involved repairs to Army property? If there have been three incidents in five years in which property has been hit and damaged, would not my hon. Friend agree that there must be many more stray bullets which have gone into the undergrowth in the vicinity? Does not this reveal an alarming degree of negligence on the part of the Army authorities? I hope that my hon. Friend will accept liability in this instance and see that the widow and her young son are properly looked after.

Mr. Blaker: I do not know what authority my hon. Friend has for the wide accusations he has made. It was stated at the coroner's court that there had been two previous incidents, the first five years ago and the second in May 1972. All these matters will be carefully looked into by the board of inquiry, as will the claim on behalf of the widow of the deceased.

Gibraltar

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in view of the current dispute with the Spanish authorities, he proposes to increase provision for the defence of Gibraltar.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the deep sense of isolation felt by the people of Gibraltar as a result of the Spanish activities, including the blockade? Is there not some way in which the defence budget could be used

to help reduce that isolation, possibly by the provision of flights, or a subsidy on flights, to and from Gibraltar?

Mr. Gilmour: I was in Gibraltar recently and I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the sense of isolation. We will certainly look into his suggestion. He knows, however, that the defence budget is under considerable pressure.

Mr. Gorst: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent, if any, our defence arrangements in Gibraltar are dependent upon arrangements with NATO?

Mr. Gilmour: Some of our defence arrangements are closely involved with NATO since we are a member of that organisation. I do not think I can say any more than that.

Miniature Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions with the United States Defence Ministry on its proposal to introduce the new miniature nuclear weapons for deployment in Europe.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will urge in NATO rejection of the use of miniature nuclear weapons in Europe.

Mr. Roderick: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he has come to any conclusions about the implications for British defence policy of the development in the United States of America of the miniature nuclear weapons.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have nothing to add to my remarks on the subject of miniature nuclear weapons during the defence debate on 10th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 761–2.]

Mr. Allaun: The Times certainly reported this proposal. Will the Minister give an assurance that, if this matter is pressed, Her Majesty's Government will oppose such a dangerous plan? Does he agree that if this kind of nuclear weapon were used the Russians would not set up the Soviet equivalent of a Royal Commission to examine the size and type of bomb but would probably react with their heaviest nuclear weapon, which would wipe out life on our island?

Mr. Gilmour: As I said in the defence debate, no such proposals have yet been made, and if they are made they will be considered very carefully in the Nuclear Planning Group, by ourselves and by our NATO allies. There would be no question of any rushed or merely technical decision. I cannot speculate on how the Russians might or might not react to something so hypothetical.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend urge the necessity of keeping an open mind on this matter, because, unless we have the capacity to repel with relatively small weapons an armed incursion into Europe, inevitably we shall be faced with either surrender or the use of large nuclear weapons?

Mr. Gilmour: As I have said, if these proposals are put forward we shall consider them but it is too early yet to say what our conclusions will be.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister aware that the sort of thing which is evidently in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) would be suicidal? Is he further aware that his answer was not satisfactory because he said that he will consider the matter? He is being asked in many quarters not to consider the matter but to reject it in principle. Many people believe that the use of small nuclear weapons would inevitably escalate into the use of large nuclear weapons, and they also believe that NATO's strategy should be founded on conventional weapons. Will the Minister give an answer in that sense and not relate it to his previous answer?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view but, as I said in the defence debate, it is much more sensible to wait for the proposal to be put forward and then to consider it rather than to reject it without consideration before it has been made.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not true that the Soviet Union in its exercises and defence planning makes provision for the use of nuclear weapons right across the spectrum from the outset of hostilities? While this is a possibility, should not the United Kingdom and members of the NATO alliance at least prepare for it?

Mr. Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when

Secretary of State for Defence, put forward something on the lines of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) said at the beginning of his supplementary question.

TAVR (Strength)

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the current strength of the new units in the TAVR.

Mr. Blaker: At 31st March the strength of the new TAVR units which were formed on 1st April 1971 was 8,145, comprising 7,617 in the infantry units and 528 in the armoured car regiment.
In reply to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on 23rd March 1973, I regret that the strength at 31st January 1973 was overstated by 300. The actual strength at that date was 7,977.—[Vol. 853, c. 193–4.]

Mr. Wiggin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the continuing success in recruiting into UKLF units. Is he aware that the substantial shortage of vehicles and radio equipment is having an effect on morale in those units and that it will not be possible to maintain their efficiency unless he is able to bring these deficiencies up to strength?

Mr. Blaker: I note what my hon. Friend has said about the continuing move forward in recruiting. With regard to equipment, my information is that units are fully equipped to scale, including radios, except for a shortage of Land Rovers. As to the shortage of Land Rovers, pressure on vehicles because of activities in Northern Ireland is being felt throughout the Army and regrettably this being reflected in TAVR.

Armed Forces Act 1971 (Death Penalty)

Mr. Concannon: asked the Minister of State for Defence, in the light of recent decisions of the House of Commons, if he will now seek to amend the Armed Forces Act 1971 in relation to those parts that carry the death penalty and substitute life imprisonment.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: No, Sir. The decisions to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring have no bearing on the Armed Forces Act 1971.

Mr. Concannon: In view of the anomalous situation in which our troops, especially our troops in Northern Ireland, find themselves in relation to the rest of the population, would it not be as well for the hon. Gentleman to ask the Leader of the House to see that this matter is put fairly and squarely before the House, so that the arguments for and against may be canvassed on a free vote and so that we may come to a decision on this issue? I am sure everybody would agree that such a sentence would never be allowed to be carried out again.

Mr. Gilmour: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the hon. Gentleman a few days ago, this matter could have been discussed during the last defence debate. I cannot accept that there is an anomaly or that the situation has to be changed. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, no member of the Armed Forces if convicted of a civil offence can be treated any more harshly than the civil penalty allows. Therefore, no soldier convicted of murder could be sentenced to death. The only offences for which the death penalty still exists do not have any parallel in civilian life.

Mr. Tebbit: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that answer.

Royal Radar Establishments

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement concerning the increase in employment at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, consequent upon the closure of the RRE at Pershore; how many Pershore employees are being transferred to Malvern; how many are being transferred to Farnborough and elsewhere; and what are the net redundancies anticipated at Pershore after all re-employment arrangements.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Until the individuals affected by the rationalisation decisions, including the closure of Pershore to flying, have indicated their intentions by completing a questionnaire, I am unable to improve on the estimates which my hon. Friend has been given. These estimates showed that the total number of new jobs created in the Malvern area

will be greater than the number of men likely to be declared redundant.

Sir G. Nabarro: I thank my hon. Friend for that reassuring reply. Will he convey these details to the disquieted persons of Pershore who have been under the impression through the joint consultation machinery that they are about to lose their jobs? Will he emphasise to them that the maximum redundancy which can occur at Pershore and elsewhere in the RREs is of the order of 200 and no more, and that probably Malvern will take up that number and provide a greater number of opportunities in future?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding. As he knows, there was full consideration with the staff side, but there should not be many redundancies. It will be possible to go into greater detail when the questionnaires have been filled in. which should be in a month or so.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the effects on employment at the Royal Radar Establishment of laser weapon development? Are today's Press reports substantially correct?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think today's Press reports will have any effect on employment at the Royal Radar Establishment.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend consider the situation at Farnborough before transferring any flying from Pershore to Farnborough, particularly in view of its situation which is within three miles of the Heathrow control zone and in view of the fact that large numbers of light aircraft are routed between the London zone and Farnborough? This is an area of intense activity in terms of civil, military and general aviation. Surely it is not a satisfactory solution to bring more military aircraft under radar control into this area.

Mr. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, we considered this matter carefully before we went into consultation and then announced our decision. Even after the transfer of any flying from Pershore to Farnborough, the level of flying will still be less than it was five years ago.

Nuclear Weapons Tests

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence if it is his intention to authorise the further testing of British nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on 17th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 1700.]

Mr. Atkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said further confirms the idea that the British Government intend to produce a new range of nuclear tactical weapons and that it also gives further credence to the whole concept of an EEC defence force to supersede NATO, which no doubt in the Government's eyes would be equipped with miniature nuclear weapons?

Mr. Gilmour: Virtually nothing of what the hon. Gentleman has said can be read into my answer.

Mr. Fell: If my hon. Friend finds it necessary in the future for the defence of the West to test nuclear weapons, will he undertake that he will be under no compunction whatever to do so?

Mr. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we are under an obligation to keep our nuclear weapons up to date. If that means testing, tests will be carried out. But it also follows that they will be carried out underground in conformity with the partial test ban treaty.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of State for Defence what was the number of Service men in Her Majesty's Forces killed and injured in Ireland for each year from 1900 to the latest available date.

Mr. Blaker: It has not been possible to produce precise figures of deaths and injuries from all causes since 1900 but we believe that no Service man was killed or injured by terrorist activity in Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1969. With permission, I will place in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures relating to the period since August 1969.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many people will construe that answer as being deliberately misleading? If the figures had been obtained from the records, would they not have shown clearly that successive generations of young British soldiers have died inglorious deaths in Northern Ireland trying to impose the mistaken policies of successive British Governments? Why do not the Government accept the reality of the situation that Britain has no place in Northern Ireland against the wishes of the people of both Britain and Ireland?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot accept that my answer was deliberately misleading. I gave the hon. Gentleman the facts as far as I was able to discover them. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have the impression that he was making the speech that he hopes to make later this week should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend say clearly that the Northern Ireland border is the border of the United Kingdom and that a mischievous and vicious attack is being launched both from outside and from a militant minority in Northern Ireland designed to overthrow the Government of a part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Blaker: The position of Her Majesty's Government on that matter has been made entirely clear.

Mr. Peart: I was a member of the administration which put troops into Northern Ireland, and I believe that we made the right decision. It is my belief that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will best represent the will of the British people by supporting our troops in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Blaker: I very much welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland utterly deplore and condemn the killing of British troops in Northern Ireland? Has the Minister seen the article which appeared in the Sunday Times in which revelations were made about the British security intelligence service and that this has alarmed people in Northern Ireland as it puts at risk members of the British Army?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot comment on newspaper articles, but I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said in the early part of his question.

Following is the information:



Killed
Injured


1969 (from 1st August)
—
21


1970
—
98


1971
48
258


1972
129
447


1973 (to 21st May)
43
133

Notes:

(1) These are operational casualties, i.e. excluding flying, traffic and other accidents.

(2) Figures include members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now introduce a phased withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of troops stationed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The level of our forces in Northern Ireland depends on the needs of the situation there.

Mr. Mitchell: When will the Government wake up from their dream world and face reality? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British people support our troops in Northern Ireland but that they are also fed up with our soldiers being shot at from both sides? How much longer must they remain there?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree that everyone is fed up with our troops being shot at and in some cases killed. But they are undertaking a vital task in support of the civil authorities and must remain there until the situation is restored to normality.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does my hon. Friend accept, in more responsible and gradual terms than those raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), that over the years this demand is certain to grow? Therefore, will my hon. Friend make every possible use of Ulstermen in the provision of their own security rôle? The opinion of many people is that this is being insufficiently done and that an unfair burden is being placed upon British troops.

Mr. Gilmour: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that people are bound to become increasingly

fed up with the terrible casualties that the security forces have suffered. But I cannot agree with the second part, and I do not believe that our dispositions can be criticised in the way that my hon. Friend implies.

Mr. Lawson: Irrespective of what might be said by certain of my hon. Friends, Northern Ireland is irreparably a part of Great Britain. The people are one. The Irish are spread so widely through England, Scotland and Wales that we cannot separate ourselves. We must find an answer which will bring the peoples of Ireland and Britain together. This is the only possible solution. It is no good turning our backs on the problem and hoping that it will away. We have to find a solution which will bring the peoples together.

Mr. Gilmour: I am glad to hear that, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rôle of the Military Reaction Force, Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Army's plain clothes patrols in Northern Ireland. Their function, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) on 20th October 1972, is to undertake essential surveillance tasks in circumstances in which soldiers in uniform and with Army vehicles would be too easily recognised. —[Vol. 843, c. 145–61.]

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to Press reports in both The Times and the Sunday Times about the activities of this unit? I appreciate the need for counterintelligence and counter-espionage activities by the Army in seeking to defeat the Provisional IRA, but some of the methods used are open to considerable criticism on moral as well as on practical grounds. In particular, according to the case reported in the papers, it appears that one deserter was given the option of facing a court martial or spying on the IRA. Is this the best method of trying to defeat these people when the Government's whole policy is aimed towards reconciliation? In particular, has the Department thought about the long-term effects that this kind


of thing might have on the families of those informants?

Mr. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman knows, intelligence is absolutely vital in dealing with terrorism. The whole House will be grateful for and surprised by the extraordinary restraint and care with which the Army has chosen the method that it uses to deal with terrorists.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment serving in Northern Ireland have been killed since 12th August 1969; and in how many instances the Official or Provisional IRA has publicly claimed responsibility for these deaths.

Mr. Blaker: Since August 1969, 184 Regulars and 36 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been killed by terrorist or other hostile action in Northern Ireland. Records are not kept of the number of IRA claims of responsibility.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 260 members of the Army, the police and the reserves have been killed in Northern Ireland and that in almost every case the IRA has issued a statement claiming responsibility for those murders? Is not the failure of Her Majesty's Government to deal effectively with the security situation and to bring these terrible murders and deaths to an end the result of the fact that the Army will not direct its entire efforts towards restoring security in Northern Ireland and defeating the IRA?

Mr. Blaker: It is reasonable to assume in the context of my hon. Friend's Question that the IRA was responsible for nearly all the brutal killings to which I have referred. As for concentrating our efforts, I remind my hon. Friend that it is the task of the security forces to deal with terrorism from whatever direction it comes and that every time there is any resort to violence from other quarters this distacts the Army from the task of dealing with the IRA.

Signalman J. T. Johnson

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now make a further statement regarding compensation for the death of

Signalman J. T. Johnson, a constituent of the hon. Member for Nuneaton.

Mr. Blaker: I wrote to the hon. Member on 17th May about this tragic case.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me and for the information he has given me. Will he bear in mind, however, that it was on 24th September of last year that Signalman Johnson died in a very unfortunate acicdent? Will he undertake to look at these procedures again in view of the very long time it has taken to discover the facts of the situation, bearing in mind that the Johnson family still do not know whether they can get compensation?

Mr. Blaker: We went into the reasons for the delay in the course of a recent Adjournment debate. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, it was due almost entirely to the fact that a court martial had to be held. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about compensation, my recent letter to him covered that and I take it that he will pass it on to Signalman Johnson's parents.

Through-deck Cruiser

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the order for a through-deck cruiser.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): As my hon. Friend announced on 17th April, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), we have now placed the order for HMS "Invincible" with Messrs. Vickers of Barrow. We expect the ship to enter service towards the end of the decade.—[Vol. 855, c. 240–42.]

Mr. Dalyell: Does it make operational sense to order one through-deck cruiser without ordering three?

Mr. Buck: We have announced that this will be the first of a class. We have to make the first order, and it makes sense to place the order in the way that we have done.

Mr. Wall: When will a decision be announced whether these ships will


operate vertical take-off and landing aircraft?

Mr. Buck: We hope that this announcement will be made before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Judd: Is there any impact on this in terms of the recent announcement of cuts in defence expenditure? Are there break clauses in the contract, or shall we go ahead come what may? Will the hon. Gentleman look again at the question and realise that the morale of naval aviators demands that we have a convincing and comprehensive policy statement as early as possible?

Mr. Buck: The matters announced yesterday do not affect this project. The whole of our NATO commitments and so forth are unaffected by what was announced yesterday. As to VSTOL, we are conscious of the need to make an early decision about this and we are pressing on with our studies of that which has been delivered to us by industry.

Mr. John Morris: Are there break clauses in the contract?

Mr. Buck: Perhaps I might have notice of the details of the question. This is a contract which has been made for this craft, and it is a firm contract.

Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for a new air superiority fighter for the Royal Air Force within the next five years.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Phantom FGR2 will start transferring to the air defence rôle next year. An air defence version of the MRCA is planned for the longer term.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the concern which is being expressed about the ability, both in types of aircraft and in numbers, of the NATO air forces to maintain air superiority over potential battle zones?

Mr. Gilmour: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's point. We would all like more aeroplanes, of course, but we are confident that those we have will give a very good account of themselves.

Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the disquiet that exists in Germany about the lack of full financial provision in the German defence budget for the MRCA'? Will he confirm that there is a strong possibility that the German order will be no more than 200? In view of the fact that the original work-sharing and general allocation of contracts was based upon the shares likely to be taken up by Germany, Italy and ourselves, may I ask whether there has been any alteration since we entered into the original arrangement?

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. I have no knowledge of that matter. As he knows, the work-sharing arrangements are related to the number of aeroplanes ordered. If there were a decline in the German order, the work-sharing arrangements would have to be adjusted.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in view of the shortage of aircraft, no Lightning interceptors will be withdrawn from squadron service as the Phantoms are phased into the air defence rôle?

Mr. Gilmour: No decision has been made to phase out the Lightnings.

TAVR (Sandhurst Courses)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many commission courses for members of the TAVR it is proposed to hold at Sandhurst in the second half of 1973.

Mr. Maker: None, Sir—but five courses will have been held in the first half of the year.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a satisfactory situation? Does he further agree that this provision is inadequate for the number of officer cadets that we have, still less for the number we ought to be anticipating? Will he look again into means of reducing the delays between the passing of the selection board and the actual courses?

Mr. Blaker: I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend. We are taking steps to increase the number of vacancies from 160 to 200 for the courses to be held in the first half of next year. We are


also examining means of fitting in at least one TAVR commission course during the autumn each year from 1975 onwards.

Mr. Wiggin: How many probationary officers are waiting for places on these courses? Are they having to delay getting their full commissions because of this lack of space on the courses?

Mr. Blaker: There is currently a delay of between six and nine months, but we expect that the changes I have just described will meet the demand.

Fishery Protection Fleet

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his plans to increase the size of the Royal Navy fishery protection fleet.

Mr. Buck: The increase of 50 per cent. in the effort deployed by the Services on coastal fishery protection announced by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on 20th January 1972 has now been put into effect.
As regards other fishery protection duties, Royal Navy ships are available as necessary to protect British fishing vessels following their lawful pursuits on the high seas.—[Vol. 829, c. 651–2.]

Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply concerning the protection of fishery activities around Britain's immediate coastline, but may I ask him to turn his attention to a specific point? In the wider area, if the Icelandic dispute is seen as symptomatic of the kind of problem which may increasingly arise in future, with acute world pressure on resources in the sea, may I ask whether he is convinced that the Navy has at its disposal sufficient ships of the right type for handling this kind of situation?

Mr. Buck: Heaven forbid that there should be another Icelandic situation of this kind. I am convinced that the Royal Navy has a wide range of capabilities which will enable it to deal with any situation which may reasonably be foreseen.

Mr. Luce: Moving from Iceland to Sussex, may I ask my hon. Friend to

bear in mind that twice in the last fortnight reports have been made of Belgian beam trawlers fishing within the six-mile limit off the Sussex coast and that up to £400-worth of damage to the equipment of inshore fishermen in Arundel and Shoreham and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has been caused allegedly by these beam trawlers? Does he therefore accept that the best form of prevention is some means of regular naval fishery protection patrolling in these waters? Will he undertake to provide this kind of patrol off the Sussex coast in the height of the season?

Mr. Buck: I have looked into the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is possible that there is some confusion here as certain craft have been bought from the Continent and are now being operated under the British flag. There could be an element of confusion whether the situation is quite as bad as is suggested. However, I will look into the matter further and do everything I can to help my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. James Johnson: I believe that the deep-sea fleet is satisfied with the measures so far taken in this extraordinary event off the Icelandic banks. However, as regards East Yorkshire, I do not think the inshore fleet is so happy about the number of vessels that we possess for guarding against the poaching of herring and other fish off the Yorkshire and East Anglican coast by Belgian, Dutch or other nations' ships.

Mr. Buck: The "ton" class vessels which operate in these coastal waters—I have spent some time on them, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman has, too—are very effective. We would obviously like more, but I am convinced that the degree of protection afforded around our coasts is very good. I think that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who has paid a recent visit to one of these craft. will probably agree about that.

Mr. Wall: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the degree of naval protection afforded off Iceland, may I ask him to bear in mind a report that a British frigate protected a West German


trawler? Will he seek the co-operation of the German Navy in the protection of our vessels on the high seas?

Mr. Buck: Matters of further co-operation with continental countries is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but seafaring people should co-operate all the way through in these waters. That should be the spirit that prevails rather than a spirit of belligerency.

Pension Rights (Transferability)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of State for Defence when the review of the Armed Forces pension scheme with regard to the transfer of pension rights is expected to be completed.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Preservation and transferability of pension rights are very complex subjects and I cannot say when our studies will be completed.

Mr. Hunt: When the study is eventually completed and if, as I hope, it recommends a freer transfer of pension rights, will my hon. Friend consider making such recommendations retrospective, particularly to help former Service men now in the police force who are suffering grave injustice under the present arrangements?

Mr. Gilmour: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and I sympathise with the people whom he has in mind. However. I must tell him that when we alter the arrangements it will not be possible to make them retrospective.

East Africa (Navy Visits)

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many good will visits the Royal Navy has made during the last two years to the ports of Berbera and Mogadishu in Somalia and to other ports in Eastern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buck: No visits have been made to Berbera or Mogadishu in the last two years. During that period, however, Royal Navy ships have visited ports in Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, the Malagasy Republic and the French Territory of the Afars and Issas. We are not neglecting the area.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable good will towards the United

Kingdom in the Republic of Somalia? Will he investigate the possibility of the Royal Navy sending a detachment on an official visit, particularly in view of the fact that when several right hon. and hon. Members of this House visited that country some two years ago we were assured that the facilities at Berbera and Mogadishu were available for use at commercial rates by ships of any navy that cared to make use of them?

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. I will gladly investigate the possibilities of a visit of the kind he has in mind. We might even draw on his contacts in that area to see whether anything useful can be arranged.

Mr. James Johnson: May I confirm from personal experience that not only the Somalis in Berbera and Mogadishu but all the English-speaking people from Yemen to Zanzibar have the utmost good will towards us and that nothing but good can come from our vessels showing our flag in those waters?

Mr. Buck: As I have said, we show the flag in waters near there. But I will gladly go into the matters which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have now put before the House.

Army Air Corps (Aircraft)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what new aircraft are on order for the Army Air Corps.

Mr. Blaker: The Gazelle helicopter is now in production, and development of the Lynx helicopter is well advanced.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Army Air Corps would very much like to have a medium-lift helicopter or a Short Skyvan? What consideration has been given to ordering either of those aircraft for the corps?

Mr. Blaker: If a medium-lift helicopter were supplied to the British forces, it would be operated by the RAF. We have no immediate plans to buy any of these very expensive aircraft. We have evaluated the Skyvan at the request of Short Brothers, but we have no requirement for it because it is too big for our needs.

Persian Gulf and Southern Arabia

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the rôle of British forces in the Gulf.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about defence commitments in Southern Arabia and the Gulf.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We no longer have any formal defence commitments in the Gulf. We continue to maintain close and friendly links through treaties of friendship with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar. We also provide assistance by helping to train the forces of a number of countries in the area—for example Kuwait—and by loaning personnel for service with them. In Southern Arabia, British Service men are on loan to the Government of Oman and assist in training the Sultan's forces.

Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome that reply. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, as defence co-operation is increasing between interested countries in the area such as Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, with which we have friendly relations, he will in no way diminish the British presence? In particular, at a time of economic stringency and when patrols are having to be mounted off Iceland, will he assure us that the British naval presence in those areas will not be diminished?

Mr. Gilmour: I can assure my hon. Friend that we certainly have no plans to diminish our presence there.

Service Personnel (House Purchase)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy regarding giving financial assistance to Service personnel prior to their retirement from the Service to enable them to buy their own homes.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We operate a scheme for all three Services whereby a proportion of the terminal benefits due to those retiring after long service may be advanced free of interest during the last year of service to help meet the deposit and professional fees associated with the purchase of a house. There is

a separate advance-of-pay scheme for senior naval ratings with the same object.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the very last words of that answer—that the scheme is available only to senior naval ratings—sums up the situation? Does he accept that people in the Armed Forces are not among the highest-paid in the country? No one can say that they are overpaid. Is he aware that they have a particular problem in that they have to live in Service-provided accommodation and move into their own accommodation on the date of retirement, and that if they have to provide themselves with accommodation this presents them with a particular problem, which is different from that of ordinary civilians? Knowing that the hon. Gentleman wishes to do what he can to help civilian personel, may I ask whether the Government will consider this again to see whether we cannot get a house-purchase scheme going for Service personnel, subsidised if necessary by the Treasury?

Mr. Gilmour: I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says. This is a problem which affects all Service men and we should like to extend the present naval scheme and rationalise it among all the Services. But we are short of money. We are considering ways of improving things, but I cannot promise that we will be able to come up with something very drastic in the immediate future.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the greatest concentration of scientific manpower in the Services in Britain is at the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, where he and his colleagues have resolutely refused to sell tenanted houses to the occupying Service personnel? Will he follow the idiom of the Government in this matter and sell these houses to the serving personnel on the same principle as he sells council houses to sitting tenants?

Mr. Gilmour: We do not sell council houses to sitting tenants in the Services. As I have told my hon. Friend, there are other requirements for houses. If, however, the houses become available and are not wanted by other people, we try to dispose of them as best we can.

Mr. Judd: At a time when the Government have found it possible to find £15


million for the building societies, are they aware that the Opposition would like to see assistance of this kind given to Service families with their special problems and extended to them irrespective of their service and rank?

Mr. Gilmour: Of course, everybody always wants to do a great deal for the Services, but it is worth bearing in mind that the Opposition did not make great progress in this matter when they were in power.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake an official tour of the African continent.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend hopes, when dates can be arranged, to take up several outstanding invitations to visit countries in Africa; but he has no plans to visit Africa at present.

Mr. Haselhurst: While one accepts that Britain's relations with African countries are probably better now than at any time, may I ask whether it would not be right that the Prime Minister should signify the importance that the Government give to the needs and concerns of the Third World by making an early official visit to a number of Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries in Africa?

Mr. Barber: This is purely a question of time. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend last Thursday, we maintain close contact with the leaders of African countries, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have paid visits to most of the countries of Africa. Of course, we have had the pleasure of entertaining many African leaders here in London. We attach the greatest importance to these contacts. In reply to my hon. Friend's last point, for instance, General Gowon will be coming here next month to pay a State visit.

Mr. Faulds: Without despatching the Prime Minister to Africa, is it not clear that the Smith-Home proposals are as dead as the dodo and that the Africans are not interested in their resurrection? Do not the Government realise that only

negotiations based on the principle of NIBMR have any relevance to the realities of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Barber: What is required now is for the two races in Rhodesia to come together and try to reach an agreement. I say that because the problems of Rhodesia can eventually be solved only by the Rhodesians themselves. It is up to them to agree to an acceptable basis for a settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister what further invitations he has issued to the TUC and CBI to meet him for talks on matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about matters concerning phase 3 discussed with the TUC and CBI.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Prime Minister whether he will report on his resumed talks with the TUC.

Mr. Parry: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC and the CBI.

Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment and I met representatives of the TUC on 17th May. We discussed the progress of the economy and the problems which will have to be overcome in order to sustain the present expansion. We did not discuss details of what will follow stage 2 of the counter-inflation programme. The TUC representatives undertook to report to their Economic Committee and their General Council and then will let the Government know whether they can accept an invitation for a further meeting. The Government will be having a similar meeting with representatives of the CBI on 30th May.

Mr. Meacher: What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give the TUC about the rampant use of tax havens? Is he aware that the deposit of funds in the Channel Islands is today accelerating at a rate three times faster than a year ago and today totals about £1,000 million?


Therefore, is not the Government's incomes policy a case of having slammed the stable door shut after the real money-spending horses had already bolted?

Mr. Barber: I answered a Question the other day about tax avoidance and about various devices which are used. I set out the attitude of the Inland Revenue and of myself to them.

Mr. Kinsey: I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises that the Government have had the support of the moderate majority of trade unions for the policy so far. Will he see that in future they are given a fair deal? Otherwise he will lose that support.

Mr. Barber: It is certainly true that we have had the support of the moderate trade unions. It is recognised now throughout the country that it is in everyone's interest to control inflation. It is also significant that well over 3 million people have already been covered by pay settlements within the phase 2 limit. Throughout the country moderation and common sense have been shown in putting forward wage demands. Incidentally, there has been a marked improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. Huckfield: As we have seen, particularly in recent weeks, that those who make their living from profits, rents and dividends have had a far easier time in the freeze and phase 2 than those who have been very hard hit as wage-earners by rocketing food prices and rents, what will the Chancellor do to ensure that things are fair in phase 3?

Mr. Barber: Concerning phase 2, and the code and the action taken by the Government, we have been very strict with all sections.

Sir G. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and, through him, the Prime Minister on the undoubted success of phase 1 and phase 2, may I ask my right hon. Friend not to delay too long resumed talks with the TUC on the prospects for phase 3? Undoubtedly, if my right hon. Friend delays too long, the Summer Recess will be upon us, and many decisions may be taken at the Trades Union Congress which will not be capable of being obviated at a later date.

Mr. Barber: As I have said, the discussions which we had with the TUC

the other day were concerned with the general economic situation. It is too early to say what the Government will be proposing for the position following phase 2, because this will depend on the discussions with the TUC and the CBI, on our economic situation and prospects at the time, and on our success in phase 2. But I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Healey: In view of the Chancellor's assurance to the House yesterday that he would guarantee an increased living standard for the British people which is reasonable in relation to the 5 per cent. increase in the national wealth which they are currently producing, how will he ensure that at the end of phase 2 working people will be able to make up for the fact that during the whole period of phase 1 and phase 2 the cost of living will have risen at least twice as fast as wages? The Chancellor will surely be aware of the figures he recently published showing that the cost of living during the period of the freeze had risen faster than before the freeze was introduced.

Mr. Barber: The whole purpose of our economic strategy and of our counter-inflation policy is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to achieve a faster rate of growth and rising living standards.
The most recent figures show that over the past 12 months earnings have certainly risen more than prices. The right hon. Gentleman asked what is a reasonable increase in consumers' expenditure. I can assure him that it is not reasonable that total output and consumers' expenditure should grow at only 2 per cent. a year, which was the average for the years 1964 to 1970. The present Government have succeeded in doubling the rate of economic growth and in trebling the rate at which the standard of living has been rising.

Mr. Russell Kerr: For whom?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), even if only in interrogative form, will wish to congratulate the Government.

Mr. Healey: Does the Chancellor propose, on any occasion before the next General Election, to answer one question which is put to him by the Opposition?


If he wants to break his record, will he answer the question I put a moment ago? Does he not agree that during the whole period of his prices and incomes policy, since last November, the cost of living has risen three times faster than earnings?

Mr. Barber: I have given the right hon. Gentleman the latest figures.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPEN GOVERNMENT

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between various Government Departments for the ensuring of open government.

Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
Yes. Sir. It is the Government's policy to provide as much information as possible in the form of Green Papers and in other ways so that public discussion can influence major Government decisions. All Departments play their part in this.

Mr. Davidson: That is a much longer answer than the Prime Minister normally gives. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the sleazy and squalid events surrounding American Government cannot happen here, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the time has come for a long-overdue radical reform of all measures, such as the Official Secrets Act, which can make Governments feel that they can operate as a charmed closed circle, which itself can lead to an ultimate abuse of power? Will not the Chancellor follow that by saying that we shall have a debate on the Franks Report?

Mr. Barber: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall not make that last point. Open government means giving the public all relevant information in time to allow them, where possible and appropriate, to have public discussion in order to influence major Government decisions. Indeed, if I may refer to my experience as Chancellor, since I have been at the Treasury we have issued Green Papers on corporation tax, value added tax, the tax credit scheme and the taxation of capital on death. But what open government does not mean is allowing incomplete information or information in a partial state of preparation to leak out from Government Departments.

Mr. Wilkinson: In view of that undertaking, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issues a directive to the Civil Aviation Authority calling for a national survey on airports policy—not a survey for the South-East and not a separate survey from the Tees to the South Midlands—in view of the grave disquiet, in terms of the environment, of national expenditure and of regional development, involved in these decisions?

Mr. Barber: Answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I think that my safest course is to refer that point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Thorpe: In view of the admirable precepts contained in the Question and the Chancellor's reply, will he accept that open government is not synonymous with vacuous government? Will he look at what happened yesterday afternoon and ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that there is a case for having the Leader of the House on the carpet and giving him a good wigging? An admirable debate was started by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on industrial injuries. A Minister then rose, without listening to any of the argument which had been put forward, and announced that the Government would be introducing a Bill, the contents of which were not divulged and the date of introduction of which was not disclosed. We were then expected to have a Second Reading debate on that Bill, which certainly is not a good way of having open government.

Mr. Barber: I was unable to be present myself after making a statement on public expenditure, but from what I heard I thought that the debate had gone rather well.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on housing delivered at Sidcup on 7th May.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech which he made at Sidcup on 7th May 1973 relating to housing.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the economy at Sidcup on 7th May.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech on Government housing policy at Sidcup on 7th May.

Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 8th May, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: I welcome the Government's decision to spend an extra £35 million on housing, but will my right hon. Friend seek new ways and means of encouraging the sale of council houses to sitting tenants, as there is a widespread demand among sitting tenants for home ownership?

Mr. Barber: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the sale of council houses to sitting tenants. Under this encouragement local authorities and new towns in England and Wales sold 62,000 dwellings last year, 1972. One should compare that with the 1970 figure, which was 7,000, and with the fact that the number of local authorities which sold rose from 244 in 1970 to 621 in 1972. So I think that we are making good progress.

Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate why the Prime Minister failed in that speech to castigate those Conservative local authorities in outer London which have deliberately and wilfully refused to make land available to the stress areas of inner London? Such land is available and it is being refused out of political prejudice.

Mr. Barber: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his question. I agree that the fairest and most efficient way of dealing with the situation which we face in many parts of the country is to ensure that the supply of land is increased.

Sir J. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the rural district councils near London in the green belt are reluctant to sell their houses unless they get an assurance that more

land will be available for council house building? When will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Barber: It is a fact that planning permissions were granted in the South East in the first nine months of 1972 for nearly 60 per cent. more private dwellings than in the same period of 1970. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement and in his White Paper put forward other proposals which will go quite a long way towards increasing the availability of land.

Mr. Archer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that no number of houses for sale can assist those who find the cost of houses perpetually receding away from their pockets? Does he accept that only a greater stock of council houses can assist the 90,000 people who are driven each year to apply to the local authorities for temporary accommodation?

Mr. Barber: The assessment of the need for council houses for local authority needs is the responsibility of the local housing authority. The Housing Finance Act 1972 created arrangements under which Exchequer help is concentrated on the people and on the areas which need it. That is the right way of tackling the problem.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the most part those who are given the opportunity to buy their council houses are the very people who would not be able to afford to buy their own homes in the ordinary way?

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the principal reasons for putting forward this policy.

Mr. Edward Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the national stock of houses to let is diminishing rapidly each year? Further, is he aware that many people, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends, believe that to sell council houses when there is an acute shortage of land is the height of irresponsibility?

Mr. Barber: I disagree 100 per cent. with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday 11th June.—[Mr. Prior.]

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: I wish to oppose the motion that the House should adjourn on Friday. We should not adjourn until we have had an opportunity of discussing the inability of the Minister for Industrial Development to meet Merseyside Labour Members to discuss an important redundancy in my constituency. Following various meetings with shop stewards and management about the redundancy, I asked the Minister last week whether he would receive a delegation of Merseyside Labour Members. After some hesitation, he decided that he had not time to do so, despite the urgency of the matter.
Obviously the Minister is overloaded. He needs assistance and the House should have an opportunity of discussing the matter. After all, the Minister is claimed to have important responsibilities. The redundancies to which I refer take place at the end of the month. That is only in a few days' time. It was essential, if the discussions with the Minister were to have any purpose, that we should meet this week.
There were other reasons for us to want to have a discussion with the Minister. We have had discussions in the past, but there are immediate and important matters which my hon. Friends and I wish to raise with the Minister. For example, we wanted to raise the possibility of Merseyside being given the status of a special development area. It is admitted by Government Members from the Merseyside area that this part of the country, which is a development area, is not responding as it should to the Government's current economic measures. Unemployment is still very high. We would have wished to take the opportunity to discuss the recently published Booz-Allen Report which may have important implications for Merseyside and, in particular, for my constituency.
However the reason for its being vital and important that we should have an

urgent discussion with the Minister was made plain to him. There is an immediate redundancy which is threatening in my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members in the Merseyside area. That redundancy threatens about 200 people. It is a redundancy which follows many other redundancies which have taken place in the ship-repairing yard of Cammell Laird which we have discussed with the Minister in the past. We have asked him so do what he can to deal with the rapidly declining employment in the ship-repairing yard. We have drawn his attention to how redundancies in the yard are affecting not just young people but also older people. Some of the older people will find it very difficult to get further employment, given the present level of unemployment at Merseyside.
In this urgent situation, having discussed the matter with the shop stewards a fortnight ago and with the management last week, and having had from the management no satisfaction when we asked it whether it would withdraw its redundancy notices with a view to there being consultation, we took the final step open to us and asked the Minister to receive a delegation. That he refused to do.
It seems that if the Minister for Industrial Development is unable to find time to meet Members from Merseyside who have an important constituency problem, the Minister is either incapable of doing his job or he needs to reorganise his programme and to get his priorities right, or he needs further assistance. If we discussed this matter and deferred the Adjournment of the House we might be able to discover what it is about the Minister's programme which makes it impossible for him to discuss urgent constituency matters.
The name Cammell Laird—the ship-repairing yard is Cammell Laird Dry Docks—is the most important name and indeed an historic industrial name in my constituency. None of my constituents and nobody on Merseyside will take it well that when a group of hon. Members ask the Minister to receive them on an urgent matter, the Minister refuses and says that he has not time to do so. For those reasons I oppose the Adjournment of the House.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Before we adjourn for the Whitsun Recess there are two matters which I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House regarding the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday which concern local government and the roads in East Anglia. I know that those are matters which are close to my right hon. Friend's heart.
First, when is the White Paper on local government finance to be published? When I heard the Chancellor's statement yesterday I noticed that there was quite a lot said about continuing the system of rate support grant. As I have continually said on the Floor of the House, I am disturbed that the present system of rate support grant causes extravagance in local government spending. I should like to hear an early statement before we rise for the recess. I hope that the Government will be able to give an indication that the motion on local government spending which I have on the Order Paper, with about 29 of my hon. Friends, will be encouragingly dealt with. As an hon. Member who has two important ports in his constituency in the haven ports, I should like an early statement from the Government about their policy towards the roads. I can understand some of the reasons that lead to the Chancellor's announcement. Nevertheless the Government have said that there is a priority for "trunking" the roads to our ports.
Last week I attended a meeting in the Ipswich area called to draw attention to the importance of the road from Felixstowe to the Midlands. I was not happy about the intention to improve the A45 because if only the A45 is improved it will not help the ports of Harwich Navy Yard and Parkeston. I am sure that the Government know of the increasing trade passing through the haven ports. At present it is approaching 15 million tons a year, which represents a considerable expansion in the last few years. In view of such expansion, are the Government giving sufficient priority to "trunking" the roads to the ports to ensure that the roads from the Midlands will be able to service those ports satisfactorily?
It is because of these facts that I should like a statement from the Government.

The announcement about the cuts in road spending is causing considerable anxiety in East Anglia. I hope that we may be assured this afternoon that the Government have no intention of changing their policy.
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). Since I raised the issue of the Chancellor's cuts, perhaps it is appropriate here to say that one thing which disturbs us as members of the Committee has been the way in which projects have been escalating in cost. For each subject that comes before us the story is the same. An estimate may be made of a cost of £5 million and the final cost is £10 million. With an estimate of £100 million the cost is ultimately found to be £200 million or £300 million. It is in this context that I should like an early announcement in view of the Chancellor's statement yesterday that the Government will make a study about the costing of projects. For example, what will be the cost of the seaport at Maplin? What will be the cost of the airport at Maplin? Is it possible to operate a seaport and airport at Maplin and to run them in conjunction with the Channel Tunnel?
We in the haven ports want to hear that these grandiose plans will not interfere with the vital communications and the "trunking" of the roads in our part of the world. The Maplin project will cause not only serious dislocation to our businesses but also serious disturbance to the amenities of those who live in the area.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In opposing the motion I wish briefly to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister in Perth on 5th May. He made certain significant remarks about devolution to Scotland.
We realise that before the Government came to power in 1970 the present Foreign Secretary was entrusted with the chairmanship of a committee which looked into the question of Scottish devolution on behalf of the Conservative Party. However, the Prime Minister gave the impression that the Government have plans for devolution to Scotland before the rest of the United Kingdom.


Naturally, my hon. Friends and I are concerned with the Welsh aspect of the problem. It would be most unsatisfactory if there were firm proposals to introduce legislation and to give an element of devolution to Scotland before the rest of the United Kingdom because in 1969 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was then Home Secretary, set up a Royal Commission on the constitution, and its task was to study the possibilities of devolution throughout these islands, including Scotland, Wales, the regions of England, the Channel Islands and so on.
It would be wrong that the report should be anticipated. The Royal Commission has now been sitting for nearly four years and we in Wales would certainly resent any proposal to enable Scotland to jump the gun. We have advanced our argument as strongly as we could in this House that Wales should have parity with Scotland, apart from the considerations of the separate legal system in Scotland. I seek an assurance therefore that the Government have no plans to introduce separate legislation for Scotland. In the circumstances it would be appropriate for the Leader of the House to tell us when the Royal Commission on the constitution is to report. If I get satisfactory answers to those two questions I would not propose to oppose the motion.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I was interested in what the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) said and I hope that at some stage we shall be able to have a debate on devolution in Scotland and Wales. I was at the Perth conference and I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that all that was said was that proposals would be brought forward, probably in the form of a Green Paper, in the lifetime of this Parliament. As the Royal Commission on the constitution is, I understand, to report in June, we shall have sufficient time for discussion.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member referred to a Green Paper. Can he say whether the Green Paper is in-

tended for Scotland alone or whether it will cover Scotland and Wales, parts of England and other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Taylor: The time has long since passed when I could speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman will ask my right hon. Friend that question I am sure that he will get a more satisfactory answer than I could give. I hope that if we have a debate on the subject the right hon. Gentleman will take part, because the people of Scotland and Wales will be interested to know the view of the Opposition on devolution. The information that I have is that the Welsh Labour Party is reasonably enthusiastic about devolution in some form whereas, as I am sure the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) and Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) will confirm, the Scottish Labour Party has set its heart firmly against devolution along the lines suggested. It would be helpful to have an indication of the Government's view but it would also be helpful to have an indication of the Opposition's view, but there is no need for that before the Whitsun Recess.
The two-week Whitsun Recess came as a surprise to many, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider cutting it by two days. I should like those two days to be used for two purposes. On the first day I should like a debate on the Common Market regional policy. We have been grateful for the assurance that tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement on the discussions that have taken place. I am sure that, as always, my right hon. Friend will try to be extremely helpful. However, until the Council of Ministers decides, for example, on the designation of "central" and "non-central" areas and other matters, it will not be possible to have a meaningful discussion in this House.
It is one of the most dangerous and insidious aspects of the Common Market that decisions are being made and that the House of Commons subsequently discusses them, instead of the House conducting a full-scale debate to make its views known to Ministers before they go along to the discussions on these important issues. At least if the Government


make a policy decision the House of Commons can, if it is outraged, overturn that decision—and there have been one or two examples this year of changes being made. On the other hand, when the Council of Ministers makes a decision it is an almost insurmountable task for one elected assembly in one member State to change that policy.
The decisions on regional policy are crucial to Scotland and Wales and, indeed, to development areas in England, too. We have one very important decision about to come on REP. I think that, whether one is for REP or against it, what we are entitled to know and what we must know is whether, if the Government decide to continue REP after 1974 and to continue it in some form after 1978 at the end of the transition period, the Common Market will allow us to do this.
The second thing I think is crucial is that, before the Government agree with the Council of Ministers on which areas in England, Scotland and Wales should be designated central and non-central, they have the views of the House. We know that the number and extent of the areas designated in Britain for intermediate or development area status are much greater than the land designated as non-central in any other Common Market country. Obviously some parts of Britain will suffer, and I think we should have a discussion on that.
We also want a discussion on the regional fund because there have been wide-ranging estimates of the amount of cash involved. We know that the best estimates made are that after transition Britain will have to contribute about £400 million to £500 million per year to the Common Market. What can we get out of the regional fund if the total amount may be of the order of £100 million or £150 million for the whole of Europe?
These are all matters of debate, and I hope that the Government will arrange that before a final decision is made by the Council of Ministers on crucial questions affecting regional development we can have a one-day debate in the House of Commons, without a vote, without a motion, without an amendment, so that we can have a discussion in which hon. Members make their views clear

to the Government before they go to the Council of Ministers and arrive at a decision.
If we cut the recess short by two days, I should like the second day to be used for a discussion on crimes of violence and murder. Recently the House of Commons rejected substantially a Private Member's Ten-Minute Rule Bill which I put forward on the restoration of capital punishment. There is no doubt at all what the views of the House were on that occasion. A few months earlier, when I brought forward a Private Member's Bill on minimum sentences within life sentences, again the House, with the help of a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, rejected it. The House of Commons is entitled to take that view, but when we are having a dramatic escalation in murder and crimes of violence the least we should do, in all fairness to the people of Britain, is to discuss possible alternatives to help to curb the rise in crime.
Only the other day I asked the Home Secretary for the latest figures on crimes of violence by comparison with 1963, which was the year before Mr. Sydney Silverman introduced his Bill—and the rise was over 160 per cent. I have put down a Question today which will be answered on Thursday asking for the latest figures on murder and manslaughter, and I have no doubt that once again there will be a substantial increase.
I have had my say on capital punishment and on another suggestion and these have both been rejected, but I think the least we are entitled to is that the House of Commons and the Government should put forward suggestions as to the new measures which could be considered to curb the increase in violent crime and murder. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not withdraw this motion but will amend it so that we can have the recess reduced by two days to consider what I think are two very important issues.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The reason I wish to express my opposition to this Adjournment motion is connected with the Lonrho affair. It will be within the recollection of the House that last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Minister for Trade and


Industry was considering the question of the disclosure of directors' emoluments. The question I put concerned requiring companies registered in the United Kingdom to publish details of all directors' emoluments paid in the Cayman Islands or elsewhere outside the United Kingdom. That was on Wednesday, 16th May. The Government acted with a certain degree of dispatch because within two days—last Friday, to be precise—the Minister for Trade and Industry announced that there was to be an inquiry under the Companies Act into the affairs of Lonrho.
But why was that statement of the Government's intention not made on the Floor of the House? Why did the Government wait until Friday evening, when the House was not sitting, to make that announcement?
Another objection I have to the announcement is that apparently the inquiry into the Lonrho affair is to be secret. According to one newspaper, the affairs of Lonrho stink to high heaven and the only way effectively to remove the stench is to let fresh air circulate around it. The time has come for some fresh air to be brought into the affairs of companies such as Lonrho so that the general public may be protected against the kind of racket that has been operated by Lonrho for some considerable time past.
I am expressing no opinion as to the worthiness or the integrity or lack of integrity of the directors of Lonhro. They all strike me as belonging to the same class of avaricious people who, quite regardless of the public weal, are out to make as much money as they can for themselves, to the detriment and disadvantage of ordinary taxpayers who pay their income tax, of the ordinary worker, in whose case the Government make sure his income tax is paid by weekly deductions from his earnings.
I am very strongly of the opinion, first, that the Government ought to announce that this inquiry into the affairs of Lonhro will be conducted in public. Secondly, we want to know as quickly as possible who is to conduct this inquiry, because we do not yet know who the person or persons will be. Thirdly, we want an assurance that this inquiry will

be conducted with the utmost dispatch, because it is surely unfair to the shareholders of Lonhro that their situation should be subject to all kinds of doubts while this inquiry is going on. In order to remove these doubts, the inquiry should be conducted in the open and as expeditiously as possible.
The people who need protection are not the directors of Lonhro, who have been able to look after themselves fairly well up to now, but the general public. The general public are entitled to some protection against the kind of racket that has been operated in the board room of Lonhro for some considerable time past —and without doubt in the board rooms of quite a number of other companies in the City of London.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: My reason for expressing my concern about the Adjournment of the House is that we are approaching the holiday season—which is also the reason for the Adjournment—and we still have had no statement from the Department of the Environment as to what it is intending to do to alleviate the inevitably serious traffic congestion that will occur in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies in the South-West.
Holiday time is a time of pleasure for most people in the country, but it is a time of extreme discomfort for my constituents in Highbridge, Bridgwater and North Petherton. The discomfort they feel is the discomfort of having the main road through their towns virtually totally blocked throughout the holiday period.
This is not simply a narrow constituency point. The discomfort is shared by an enormous number of visitors who try to travel through my constituency. I have been surprised by the number of hon. Members who have told me, "I was in your constituency last weekend." I expect to hear them say it in terms of pleasure, but it is apparent that many of them have spent two hours waiting in a traffic jam outside Bridgwater, and their memories of my constituency are less than entirely favourable.
There is an urgent need for the Department of the Environment to take steps to alleviate the situation, which has arisen as a result of the energetic and


active work carried out to improve the road system to the West Country. As is inevitable with such improvements, the system is not yet in balance.
The first event, which was undoubtedly welcome, was the construction of the M4, which now reaches right the way to the intersection with the M5 and beyond into Wales. This has led many people to believe that the clever and smart way to travel to the South-West, particularly from the London area, is to rush down the M4 to Bristol. They look at a map and see what looks like the broad red line of the A38 and say, "That must be a good road. That must be quicker than the A30 and the A303." They are in for a nasty shock. It is a trap that many hon. Members and a large number of the general public have fallen into. They perhaps do not realise how serious the traffic bottlenecks can be on the A38, and the delays that those bottlenecks occasion.
Yesterday I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment
whether any traffic censuses have been done on the A30/A303 since the opening of the M4 
The answer was:
…census figures are available only for limited sections of the A30/A303 for 1972. It is too early to determine whether any transfer of traffic to M4 has occurred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 20–21]
My guess, based on substantial evidence that I have received from a number of people in the West Country, is that there has been a substantial transfer of traffic from the A30–A303. As a matter of urgency, publicity should be given to encourage much of that traffic to return.
There is a mistaken impression that the M4 and A38 constitute a better route. Because of the amount of traffic on it and the fact that the M5 is not yet completed through my constituency, it is certainly the slower route. It results in disappointment for those using it and enormous congestion in my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).
I fail to see any great activity by the Department both to give publicity to the dangers of using the M4–A38 route and to encourage more traffic on to the A30–A303. There is as yet a refusal to put

up more signs on the M4, something that I pressed on the Department last year. I am anxious that it should put up the signs this year to encourage earlier diversions south so that people can find alternative routes.
Perhaps we would expect a Member of Parliament to know his way around his constituency. Like all other hon. Members, this weekend I shall have a number of engagements in my constituency and I shall have my surgeries. God willing—perhaps it is dangerous to make this boast—I shall be there on time in spite of the total congestion, because I know my way around. There are ways around, which people can find if they are signposted and properly indicated. There are holiday routes in the area which help to a certain extent, but the most important thing the Department can do is to give, far earlier even than Bristol, and much further back on the M4 and M5, warnings of the congestions that people will encounter on the A38 and encouragement to traffic to take alternative routes.
It is because I am concerned at the lack of publicity that I have used this opportunity to try to remedy the situation myself, in the interests not only of my constituents but of all those people who at this holiday period and throughout the year will wish to come to the South-West, and to ensure that they have as comfortable a journey as possible.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There are a number of important issues I should like the House to debate before it adjourns, but I must accept that most of them can be debated after the recess and that there is no degree of urgency that requires us to forgo the recess for that reason. But there is one issue to which the Leader of the House should pay some attention. He should insist that the Home Secretary make a statement on it or, better still, that before any further executive action is taken on it there should be a debate in the House. If that is to be after the recess, the executive action should be postponed until then.
I refer to the treatment of illegal immigrants, some of whom are now in custody in Pentonville. About 20 are affected, but an unknown number might


be affected by a judgment of the other place in its judicial capacity, which might be given before the end of the recess. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, because it is sub judice. I take it on the basis of the Government's arguments in the other place, and I shall deal with the matter as if those arguments were correct.
The Government suggest that under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 they have a power to remove any immigrant who illegally entered this country between 1968 and the beginning of this year. They accept that they have no power to do so in respect of anyone who entered this country illegally before 1968 where the six months' limitation that then applied had expired, so that there are illegal immigrants who have immunity. But the Government say that that paragraph gives them the power now to remove other illegal immigrants.
The power is of removal and not of deportation. Therefore, those affected cannot appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. They have no redress save by a direct appeal to the Home Secretary to intervene. In fact, there is precious little chance of that, as the Home Secretary has already indicated his determination to see that as many illegal immigrants as possible are sent back.
Therefore, even if the power is seen by the other place to be a correct interpretation of the law, we must ask whether it is right that it should be used in relation to those who thought that they were entitled to immunity under the law that existed until the beginning of this year. The power, if it is correctly interpreted by the Government, is retrospective. It means that some citizens who believe that they have the right to stay here without further harassment are being denied that right by legislation passed long after they entered the country.
The House has always been extremely sensitive about retrospective legislation, and the other place has been even more sensitive. Therefore, we might expect that if any Government introduced such a power they would carefully explain it to the House during all the procedures in the course of legislation. At no stage during its passage did the Government

explain to the House or to the other place the implications of this part of the Bill. Nowhere was this part of the Bill discussed. It certainly was not discussed here. It was not discussed in Committee, and I understand that it was not discussed in the other place.
The position is that the Government have taken to themselves a power which is retrospective, to take away the rights of people to stay in this country after having entered and having been here longer than the period of immunity, often when they have settled down and become apparently completely wholesome citizens contributing by work and character to this country. This was said to be so in the Court of Appeal case. It may be right that the Government should take power to prohibit illegal immigrants from staying, as they did in the Immigration Bill. But that power must relate to future illegal immigrants and not to those who have acquired the status of British by virtue of the immunity which has arisen.
I submit that whatever views we take about the difficulty of this human problem, we ought to have a discussion in the House about it. So far there has been no such discussion. The Court of Appeal finished its hearings this morning and it has reserved judgment. The new term begins on 6th June, five days before this House resumes. If the court gives its judgment on the first day of the new term the Government will have the legal power to send out of this country a large number of people for whom in a sense we are responsible, without any intervention by this House or any consideration by us of the merits of their case.
Not only that, but there are three litigants in this current appeal. One of them was given bail by the Court of Appeal. This morning, at the end of the hearings and before judgment had been given, there was an attempt by the police to arrest that man inside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, in complete denial of the terms of the bail. This shows the kind of expedition which the Home Office is prepared to apply to these cases. I have no confidence that if the Court of Appeal delivers judgment while this House is in recess the Home Secretary will not act immediately to send back all those people whom the


Home Office knows to be affected by the court's ruling. Often the Home Office knows about these people because they voluntarily gave the information to the authorities. This will happen before the House has returned and before the matter can be aired here.
If it is impossible to debate this matter, as it probably is, until the other place has decided the legal issue, I ask that the Home Secretary at least makes a statement before the Adjournment saying that he will not take any action until this is debated by the House and that the debate will take place soon after the recess.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I do not think that we should adjourn for Whitsun until we have had a proper opportunity to debate our situation with regard to Iceland which grows more serious and in my opinion more damaging for the interests of this country every day. In the brief exchanges we have had on this issue all the running has been made by those hon. Members representing fishing ports. That is understandable. If we had a debate on the question now, those of us who do not have constituents with a vested interest in the Icelandic fishing grounds could consider this dispute more objectively and discuss some of the wider issues involved. Fish, after all, is only one of a number of interests that we have in the marine environment and support for one cannot necessarily be reconciled with the advance of another.
In this dispute the Government have stood very much on the letter of the law. In that we have the support of the International Court at The Hague. The law of the sea however is about to undergo radical change in response to new developments and ideas about what is just and equitable. My concern is not so much with the opinion of the International Court as with international public opinion. If we had a debate we might have a chance to discuss and consider the fact that Iceland's claim is not an isolated one.
It is part of a worldwide pattern of assertion of new rights over the sea and its resources. It is possible to cite Canada's claim to jurisdiction, for the purposes of pollution control, up to 100

miles from her shoreline. It is possible to cite the claim of Indonesia and Malaysia to control navigation in the Malacca Straits.
Above all we can cite the large number of poorer countries who are anxious to extend, and have already stated their intention of claiming, if they have not already claimed, jurisdiction over protein fish resources in some cases up to 200 miles from their shoreline.
It is of course regrettable that these countries should be acting unilaterally but the fact remains that every advance in the law of the sea has occurred in the past as a result of unilateral action by one country, with that country maintaining its claim until such time as its viewpoint has been accepted by the international community. This is true of claims to the territorial sea, contiguous zones, past fishing limits, and it is also true of claims to seabed resources.
Britain has not been averse to acting unilaterally when it suited her to do so. We had an example not many months ago when, by devious legal means, we claimed the seabed around Rockall and overnight acquired an additional 170,000 square miles of ocean territory. My concern is not with the law as it is but as it is developing. I fear that at the International Law of the Sea Conference less than a year away—another subject we have not had the chance to debate—we shall find ourselves isolated and completely out on a limb. If that is correct, then it means that present policy is unsound.
It is unsound becaue we are risking British prestige only to have it damaged in the end. It is unsound because we are helping to persuade our fishermen to believe that there is some ultimate prospect of success when there is not and when we ought to be helping them to adjust to a new situation. It is wrong, too, because we risk fouling up this conference by taking the line that we are taking and ensuring that on this question of the extension of fishing limits there is no international agreement.
This happened at the last conference more than 10 years ago, largely as a result of the view taken by the Foreign Office then. If we do not reach agreement on this occasion there will be a free-for-all in the oceans with the prospect of


widespread international conflict on a dimension far beyond that which we now have with Iceland.
There is one other reason why we should debate this matter. We should be considering whether it is not in our own interests to extend these limits seaward. Far from resisting someone else's claim to do so, we should be asserting our right to do so. Would this not allow us to provide a safer seaway in the Channel? Would it not allow us to control some sources of pollution which we cannot now control because they are beyond our limits? Would it not also allow us to provide more effective safety and security for our off-shore oilfields which are far more valuable than a few tons of fish off Iceland? Above all, would it not be beneficial to our near and middle-distance fishing interests?
In the last dispute we had with Iceland, which we lost, we accepted her claim to a 12-mile limit and extended our own to 12 miles. One of the great advantages of that was the benefit which accrued to our near-shore fishing industry. These are points which deserve our attention and which I believe we ought to debate.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun Recess, there is one matter of simple fact which I think the Secretary of State for Social Services needs at last to clear up, and particularly soon, because the Social Security Bill, which is involved, is today being considered in the Lords and will be considered in greater detail in the Lords shortly after the Whitsun Recess. In order that the Lords, and this House when the Bill comes back to it, may have a correct representation of the relevant facts, it is essential that the Secretary of State should put right what I think I shall be able to show was a false fact stated in the course of the Report stage of that Bill.
When the House was considering the proposal that contributions to the Reserve Pension Scheme proposed in that Bill should attract tax relief like all other pension contributions in the country, the Secretary of State made a statement which I think many people regarded as of some weight in reaching their deci-

sion on how they should vote on that amendment. That Government amendment, to knock out an amendment of mine which had been accepted in Standing Committee, was carried by only four votes, with at least 12, probably nearer 20, Conservatives either voting against the Government or consciously abstaining. The Secretary of State was therefore in one of those situations in which he knew that he might lose the vote. In that situation it was particularly important that he should have been scrupulous in his presentation of fact.
The erroneous statement of fact of which the Secretary of State was guilty, was this. He said that the split of contributions to the scheme, namely, 2½ per cent. from the employer and 1½ per cent. from the employee without tax relief, compared with 2 per cent. from each of them with tax relief, would have the effect of shifting from the shoulders of employees to the shoulders of employers a burden of £40 million. He put it this way:
Assuming total contributions for the reserve scheme, on an estimate of 7 million members at any one time, of £300 million a year, the decision to divide the contributions unevenly will mean in effect each year a shift from what the employees would have paid of £40 million off the employees' shoulders on to the employers' shoulders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 637]
It was a quite specific and categoric statement.
The serious aspect of that statement is that it totally ignores the consequences of tax relief involved. I now have, in replies from the Minister of State, Treasury, facts which go directly contrary to those stated by the Secretary of State on that occasion. The first reply, which appears in yesterday's HANSARD, shows that the shift involves an addition to employers' burdens not of £40 million but of £20 million only. The second reply shows that of that £20 million, only a negligible amount operates to relieve employees and virtually the whole of it goes to relieve the Inland Revenue.
If the Secretary of State had said that, or something like it, on Report stage of the Bill, I believe that it is perfectly possible that two hon. Members opposite would have changed their votes. There was a majority of only four. It would have needed only four more abstentions


or two more positive votes to have changed that vote.
I regard it as scandalous that a Minister should stand convicted of having given not just misleading information but I should say inaccurate information to the House on any occasion, but above all ten minutes or so before a crucial vote in which he knew perfectly well that he might be defeated.
If any hon. Member is inclined to doubt the fact that I have just stated, he can look up the references, but he might also be convinced by the fact that in that debate the Secretary of State was obliged —very belatedly, I might say—to apologise for a similar misstatement of fact of which he had been guilty on Second Reading of the Bill last November. It took six months to get that apology out of him, but he then admitted that he had been wrong. It related to exactly the same point.
Nor do these two cases stand alone. In Standing Committee there were other occasions on which Ministers on less serious matters had to admit that they had brought forward amendments without putting the full facts to the House.
In the last few days only I have received from the Under-Secretary responsible for this subject a long letter explaining how on another matter he stated something in the course of Report stage which was, he has now discovered, untrue. That in my view is an extremely serious situation.
The House—and this applies particularly to Members of the Opposition—does not have access to the research facilities which would allow Members to challenge Ministers upon facts every time we wish to do so. It is right that hon. Members should take facts stated by Ministers on trust. We are obliged to do so. When it is shown that that trust has been misplaced, it is an extremely serious matter.
I wish to touch briefly upon two wider points involved in the matter. First, what has been done in this respect is to deny tax relief to 5 or 6 million people throughout the country for their pension contributions when we, as Members of the House, take tax relief on our contributions to our pension scheme. There are no differences between the pension schemes which would explain why we should deny to our constituents what we

give to ourselves. I have dealt with that matter on another occasion at greater length and only touch upon it now.
Moreover, hon. Members may have seen in the Daily Mirror of today a reference to the treatment of Ministers' houses regarding the taxation on the value of residences provided free to Ministers of the Crown. A contrast is drawn between the treatment of Ministers' houses for tax purposes and the treatment of Lord Stokes and other worthies who receive either free or subsidised accommodation from the companies of which they are directors. It is pointed out, for example, that the Inland Revenue regards the rent which Lord Stokes pays for his residence as not commercial. Therefore, the Inland Revenue taxes him upon the element of subsidy involved in letting Lord Stokes have the flat for £1,500 a year instead of the £3,000 a year or so that it could fetch upon the market. The Inland Revenue is of course absolutely right to do that.
The point I wish to raise is that if it is right to impute a value to Lord Stokes' flat for the purposes of taxation, how is it that we do not do the same with Ministers of the Crown? I understand that the theoretical justification for this situation is that Ministers are regarded as having to live in the residences with which they are supplied for the purposes of their duties.
I had a reply yesterday from the Minister of State, Treasury, which said:
In general, where an employee is required for the proper performance of his duties to live in accommodation provided for him by his employer, he ranks for tax purposes as a representative occupier
—whatever that is—
of the accommodation, and is not taxable on its value. Ministers of the Crown are dealt with under the same rule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 24.]
I can very well see that Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street are special cases and that it is a requirement of the occupation of the posts concerned that the Ministers should reside in exactly those places. But I wonder about the flats in Admiralty House. I think that those flats and any similar residences provided free to Ministers constitute simply a remuneration. I do not think that residing in those flats is a requirement of the job. It seems to constitute simply an addition to salary.


If Lord Stokes is charged tax on his subsidised flat, why are Ministers not charged tax in respect of their free residences, except in the special cases of the Downing Street accommodation?
I raise this point not only as a matter which in its own right deserves to be discussed but because of its relevance to the matter I spoke about earlier. Today the newspapers are full of advertisements asking, "Are you getting your full share of tax relief?" and "You can cut down the amount of tax you pay". Hon. Members get tax relief which by a bare majority the Government refused for 5 million to 6 million people outside. Now we have Ministers not subject to tax on the value of residences which is in conflict with the rule I have quoted, in conflict with the treatment of company directors and others. These are matters which sometimes the House should consider. The Secretary of State for the Social Services ought to have taken an opportunity to correct the point of fact that I touched upon earlier in my speech.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I express the hope that, either on Wednesday or Thursday, the Prime Minister will give the House a full report of his meetings with President Pompidou, and in the course of that report tell us what has taken place between them and something on the subject of the French nuclear tests, which may well have started by the time we reassemble after the recess.
In particular I express the hope that the Prime Minister will give us an explanation on one narrow specific point. As reported in Hansard, in reply to the Leader of the Liberal Party the Prime Minister said:
I should think that the right hon. Gentleman would have thought it right that we should find out what the facts are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1703.]
Ever since January some of us have been getting answers from the Minister of State for Defence, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and by implication from the Foreign Secretary that of course there is nothing to worry about, there are no radiological hazards connected with the French tests and why were we going on and on nagging at this issue?
On Thursday what many of us suspected for a long time seemed to be confirmed. The truth is that we do not know —indeed no one knows—what the likely radiological hazards are in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. I am authorised to say, having visited the Australian High Commissioner this morning, that it is certainly the opinion of serious people in Australia that the results of these tests are not quantifiable. Therefore I hope that the explanation which the Prime Minister will give us will be how it comes about that there is this contrast between what he said on Thursday and what his Ministers have been saying ever since January. I leave it at that.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am glad of this opportunity briefly to raise one or two matters which should be aired before the House goes into recess. I was to refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition last Friday, but in his absence and in view of the fact that I am still collecting information on certain facts made available to me in the last two days, I shall not do so.
I wish to concentrate on the situation which has arisen concerning the publication by the Civil Aviation Authority of its latest report and the certain difference that this must make to the proposals for and the need for a third airport. I am extremely concerned that we should be going into recess without the argument for the Channel Tunnel having been debated in this House. My concern about Foulness is that this is something which has "just happened". Any one can build an airport. No one denies that the Government are well able to take a decision, to find the funds and to build a huge new airport in the South-East of England. What concerns me is that as long as that airport is to be built while Heathrow and Gatwick Airports are still open, we are likely to build one of the quietest-ever airports because it will be so little used.
Anyone can build an airport, but making it successful is a very different matter. The Government do not possess powers to direct airlines to use particular airports. So long as the airlines have the choice of using Gatwick and Heathrow or another airport, there is no doubt that the major airlines will wish to continue to use Heathrow. We have only to look


back at what happened when Gatwick opened 15 years ago and to remember the pressures on airlines such as Air France, which were totally ineffectual, to realise that something has to be done if the Government are not to make fools of themselves and fools of the British taxpayers.
Anyone who has studied these matters knows that the major airlines rely to a very large degree on inter-line traffic and, that long-and short-haul carriers need to be in communication with each other using the same airport, if that airport is to be successful. If the Government are absolutely intent on going ahead with the airport at Foulness, they should take their courage in both hands and close Heathrow and Gatwick and replace the runway capacity there with the capacity at Foulness. It is noticeable that the French, in planning their new airport, have decided that once the airport at Roissy is in operation Le Bourget will be closed.
Related to Maplin is the question of the Channel Tunnel. I declare myself wholeheartedly in favour of this project. Unlike Foulness it cannot be said of the tunnel that it has "just happened". It has been under discussion for 100 years. I find it depressing that British Railways, which stands to benefit most, appears to have little support on the Opposition benches for this proposal. I believe that the advantage to British industry, with factories in Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, of direct rail access to European markets has never been fully explained to the people of this country. I believe, further, that rail travel with fast trains using a Channel Tunnel would represent a far more civilised form of travel than any short-haul travel by air.
It was slightly ironic yesterday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, understandably and wisely, plans to curb public expenditure and reached a total of about £500 million of savings, whereas a decision could be taken bravely and boldly now not to proceed with building an airport at Maplin, or, in the alternative, to close Heathrow and Gatwick. Action on these lines would bring relief to sufferers from noise around Heathrow and Gatwick. To build an airport which airlines will not use is an ineffectual way of protecting from noise those who live around Heathrow and Gatwick.
If the Government are determined to proceed with Maplin, then they should announce that they are prepared in future to close Heathrow when the new airport become operational. I am sure that the funds raised by the Exchequer in pursuing such a course would pay for the development of the new airport. I plead with my right hon. Friend to find time to debate the two topics of the Channel Tunnel and Maplin Airport before we rise for the Whitsun Recess. The Government at least be prepared to have further thoughts about Maplin in view of the latest report from the Civil Aviation Authority.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I do not intend to detain the House long. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that the House should not go into recess, until the Merseyside Members who have requested a meeting with the Minister are given an assurance that the Minister will meet us to discuss the Cammell Laird redundancies and the other issues which have been raised by my right hon. Friend.
I wish to raise another important issue, and that is the meeting which has taken place between representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation and Sir John Donaldson, President of the National Industrial Relations Court. I have attempted at Question Time to get some answer from the Government on this matter, but unfortunately on each occasion my Questions have not been in the appropriate place on the Order Paper to receive answers. It would be wrong to suggest that the Government have had any hand in the fact that those Questions have been at the back of the queue, but because of our methods in this House I have never yet been able to question a Minister on this matter.
We should be given some answers from the Government, before we go into recess, about what they think of a situation in which the President of the NIRC can enter into discussions on amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. What will be the effect of this action on the relationship between the judiciary and possible litigants who may come before the court? It is rather like calling in the Mafia to discuss the Gaming Act.


Perhaps in the United States the Mafia would be called in on such a matter, but we are not in the United States and that is not the way we operate in this country. It would be rather like calling in a group of murderers to discuss whether hanging should be reintroduced. That is not an issue to be discussed by judges of the High Court and litigants who come before them, but it is a matter to be determined by the House of Commons and by the parliamentary process.
I regard it as an absolute disgrace and scandal that the President of the NIRC should be able to enter into discussions with representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss amendments to the Act. That is our job in this House, and it is also the Government's job. If the Government wish to come forward with amendments to that legislation—and they would be wise to do so—it is a matter which they must decide. If they wish to enter into conversations with the President of the NIRC for his opinion, or with the TUC, or with the Engineering Employers Federation, or anybody else, that is a matter for the Government. But it is not right that the President of such a court should have discussions of this kind. This is a most serious occurrence in our legal set-up and it must be treated as such. However, nobody seems to be worrying about the situation—in fact, nobody seems to care. This is an absolutely disgraceful situation.
I understood that the National Industrial Relations Court was supposed to be a court in which in individual cases its President could have discussions with those concerned to try to reach agreement without the machinery of the Act being invoked. I understand that this was the attitude being taken by the Engineering Employers Federation. But I discover that that understanding is not correct. In this week's Tribune I found a copy of a document—a document which had not yet been officially published—which arose out of those discussions. It deals not with individual cases but with the whole question of the Industrial Relations Act and the amendments which were discussed by representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation and the Chairman of NIRC.
This is just not good enough. The House should not go into recess until we have had a clear answer from the Government on their attitude to this matter and whether they envisage this practice being extended to other courts.
When the concept of an industrial relations court was first raised, the Opposition said that it looked very much like a political court, and the sort of thing which is now taking place underlines the fact that it is a political court. Therefore, I want a clear answer from the Government about their view and the attitude they take. The National Industrial Relations Court has undoubtedly fallen into disrepute. In fact Sir John Donaldson might as well be made redundant at the earliest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that it is the custom of this House in no way to reflect on a judge of the High Court.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): What my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has been criticising is the extra-curricula activities of Sir John Donaldson, and of course we can criticise his extra-curricula activities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the gentleman referred to is a judge of the High Court. That is my ruling on the last sentence of the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Heffer: I will repeat what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that you can understand what in fact I said. I did not reflect on Sir John Donaldson as such. I said that Sir John Donaldson may as well be redundant because the Industrial Relations Court has fallen into disrepute in the sense that nobody bothers to use it. The only way it is being used is primarily in terms of the unfair dismissal procedure, which was a matter contained in the legislation on this topic proposed by the Labour Government. The fact that the court is now being placed in a position of having to conduct extra-curricula discussions indicates that neither side of the industry is prepared to use the court. It is an absolute nonsense and might as well go out of existence.
I believe that we should have a debate on this matter before we go into recess. We want to know whether it is right for the President of that court or for any other High Court Judge to enter into discussions with people on an Act of Parliament in relation to whose terms those people may appear before that court as litigants. This is the important issue which I seek to raise.
Last year in The Sunday Times Lord Devlin wrote an article in which he clearly warned what could happen if the courts were to get mixed up with politics and the political situation. That is what has happened. That is why the Government have to give us an answer today, or at least to give us an assurance that we shall have a debate on this whole question at the earliest possible moment, if they cannot do it before we rise by the end of the week. It is a scandalous and dangerous situation. We have a right in this country to know precisely where we are going in respect of the relationship of the judiciary to the people of the country.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I wish to raise a point similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale).
When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday that there would be certain cutbacks in Government expenditure, the deferment of new schemes, and a reduction in maintenance schemes on roads, he specified that one scheme which would not be concerned is that for the roads necessary to support the Scottish oil development, because of their economic importance to the country. One fully sympathises with that. At the same time, I hope that before the House rises an assurance will be given that the equally vital network of new roads and road improvements linking the rest of the country with the haven ports will not be tampered with in any way.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, with his close and intimate knowledge of our joint county of Suffolk, will make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the absolutely vital nature of the roadworks now being put in train, for which neither the nation nor

the long-suffering people of Suffolk can afford to wait—the Ipswich bypass, the improvements on the A2 and the improvements which are now going ahead on the A45. I know I speak too for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who are not able to be here today.
I hope the assurance that we shall get from the Secretary of State for the Environment will be that these roadworks will not be treated as another road improvement scheme, but that a clear go-ahead to go on with them as quickly as possible will be given on the basis that they are close to the lifeblood of this country; and that if the haven ports go on developing in the way they are as the gateway into Europe, proper recognition will be given to this so that the whole commercial system of this country does not suffer.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I wish briefly to suggest to the House that we should not adjourn for the Whitsun vacation unless and until we have had the benefit of a debate on the EEC Green Paper and its regional policy.
My few remarks are in the context of the effect of that policy, especially on Wales.
We appreciate—as indeed does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who has referred to this matter previously—that these matters are not really within the jurisdiction of this House. They will to decided by our masters at Brussels. Nevertheless, we urge our Ministers, if not to exercise the power of decision in this matter, at any rate to exercise the force of their advocacy in bettering the lot of the British people, and especially those who live in development areas.
What Ministers are fighting for—as we trust they are fighting—is not for a bonus, not for an uncovenanted windfall at all, but for basic safeguards, which we maintain are conditions precedent, for Wales and similar areas to have a chance of countering the serious and grave difficulties caused by the fact of our entry into the EEC.
No one who appreciates the conditions of Wales and other peripheral


areas would wish to minimise the tremendous effect which the centripetal forces of the EEC will have upon the economy of those regions. Last year the EEC sucked into its vortex some half a million people from the peripheral countries of Europe, mainly from the rural areas. This is not a question of the basic theology of the EEC, whether it was triumph or tragedy for us to enter that body, but a question of fact. So great are the forces drawing these people into the centre that some massive countervailing forces had to be be created to balance them.
It is against such a background that we in Wales look at the duties of Ministers in connection with regional policies. Alas, over the last two years the attitude of Welsh Office Ministers in this connection has been timid and complacent. Indeed, some of us may from time to time have felt some sense of embarrassment when we raised the question, such was the reaction of Ministers opposite. Whenever we asked the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of State what their policies were to combat any of the specific situations which we described, we met such an air of injured innocence or of frosty disdain as one would in asking a bishop what pornographic book he had read lately.
One felt—despite all the evidence which was adduced and given regularly to the Secretary of State on this matter—that there was an astral distance which existed between the bromidic assurance he gave sitting in the ivory castle of his own complacency and the harsh reality of the current situation in Wales.
This matter was brought to a head by the publication a fortnight ago of the EEC Green Paper on regional policy. In many respects, this 18-page document is attractive for those who have a keen interest in regional matters. I am sure that many of us, as far as the generalities of the statements are concerned, find a great deal that is encouraging. However, as we all know, the great religions and philosophies of this world, as far as generalities are concerned, are little separate from each other. It is in the small print of the application of those philosophies that the differences occur.
If we were to have a debate on this crucial matter, it would be possible for a

number of the fundamental weaknesses of this situation to be drawn to the attention of the House. In the first place, the guidelines set out in that Green Paper are set out without prejudice to the operation of Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome. In other words, despite everything that is promised in that document it is clear that there is to be no relaxation whatsoever with regard to these provisions, which stultify, which cramp, which frustrate and which emasculate the regional initiatives which have been exercised in this country over the past few years.
Secondly, there does not appear to be, as far as the Common Market is concerned, any reckless hurry to adopt regional policies. Article 2 of the treaty called for continued and balanced expansion in member States. That was 16 years ago. Twelve years ago a conference was called on regional economy by the member States of the EEC, as then constituted. It is eight years since the EEC Commission sent its first memorandum on regional policies to the Council of Ministers.
Thirdly, we have very grave doubts whether the scale of assistance contemplated in the Green Paper is such as to have any real relevance to the problems which we face.
Some three or four years ago when the Six were contemplating a regional policy the scale mooted was of an expenditure of £20 million per annum or thereabouts. We appreciate that as regards the domestic policies of the other countries of the Common Market it is highly likely that at present we in Britain are spending on regional assistance more than that spent by all the other countries put together.
There is also the question of the threshold. That is all important. The threshold could be set at such a limit that hardly any assistance under the criteria spelt out in the Green Paper would be applicable to Britain.
We must always remember that poverty in the European context is very relative. There are some areas in the present EEC with an income per head five times as high as that of the poorer areas. Our own poorest areas compare very well with the richest areas in the Republic of Ireland, and the poorest areas


in the Republic of Ireland are infinitely richer than many of the areas in the southern and middle parts of Italy.
It is a question of where exactly the threshold is set. If it is set too high we shall be excluded completely. If it is set too low there will be so many claimants upon the bounty of that central fund as to dilute the assistance and make it utterly meaningless.
I appreciate that Welsh Office Ministers have not been asked to attend this debate. For that reason I do not comment on their absence. But I hope it will be conveyed to them that if we had a debate on the Green Paper I should ask them for four assurances.
The first is that in any negotiations with the EEC they should demand that the whole of Wales should be designated a peripheral area. We say that this is a matter of such crucial importance that the Secretary of State for Wales should be willing to stake his ministerial position on it, and that if he fails to discharge his high duties of trusteeship towards the Welsh people in this matter the only honourable course open to him is to resign.
Secondly, even if the whole of Wales is designated a peripheral area assurances should be obtained from the Council of Ministers that all the other regional assistances which have been practised in Britain over the past seven or eight years should remain available. I appreciate that this is the acid test of the good will and integrity of those who over the years have been telling us that it does not matter what the letter of the European law says and that the practice is always more benign than the strict grammatical interpretation of the articles of the Treaty of Rome. This matter is now being put to issue.
Thirdly, if Wales is to be designated a peripheral area there must be set up in Wales some body to disburse the aid which is channelled from the EEC. We say that that body should be under the jurisdiction of the Welsh Office rather than any other Government Department.
Lastly, we ask for what the Secretary of State for Wales has denied us for two years, and that is a White Paper spelling out the problems and the difficulties created by this wholly new situation of the United Kingdom being a member of

the EEC, translating the general problems into the particular context of Wales, and specifying in detail what bold policies Her Majesty's Government are willing to implement in order to counter the situation.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) reminds me of my early days at school when I was learning history. History always stopped 50 or 100 years before my birth. The hon. Gentleman has been purporting to tell us what is happening about regional policies in Europe. He traced its history. But, like the schoolbooks, he stopped short of today. He should have gone on to tell us what is happening this year. We have joined Europe. Europe now has a European policy on the way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) is about to relate his remarks to the motion under discussion.

Mr. Proudfoot: Most certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I was led astray by the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan. I appreciate that we are debating the motion for the Whitsuntide Adjournment, and I shall relate my remarks to it. It was the hon. Gentleman's speech which triggered off my line of thought since it was about regional policy. There is a regional policy now. A Member of this House is Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee in Europe.
I relate my remarks to the motion for this very reason. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement about some cut-backs in public expenditure. I am sure that my right hon. Friend was completely right to do that. However, I seek one assurance, and this is where regional policies come into what I am saying.
I feel that South Lancashire, Yorkshire and Humberside have a very important stake in the immediate future which should be borne in mind if there is to be any interference with road programmes. The M62—or, as I prefer to call it, the Central British Motorway—comes into


play and has significant economic consequences. I hope that the cuts of £100 million in our road expenditure will not affect that road. I hope also that there will be no hold-up in the bypass round the historic city of York and those round Tadcaster and Malton, because they have economic consequences for the communities in those parts of Britain.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I do not think that this House should rise for the Whitsun Recess without a statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the present grave situation in Rhodesia.
Hon. Members will be aware of the serious riots in Harari Township which broke out two days ago, that a number of people were injured in those riots, and that they were perhaps a symptom of more than local discontents.
A comment which we should take most seriously is one saying:
Africans are becoming increasingly embittered about such things as communal punishments and African bar curfews in urban areas. I doubt if this sort of thing will stop until we get this Government out.
That was not said by one of the rioters, by an infiltrator from Zambia, or by one of those whom we in this House according to our persuasions on Rhodesia variously call "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". It was said by Mr. Allan Savory, whose wife and daughter had just been injured in the rioting in Harari Township, and who is a white Rhodesian Member of Parliament and founder of the Rhodesia Party.
I submit to the Leader of the House that the situation in Rhodesia is critical, and the regrettable events at Victoria Falls recently are evidence of a further increase in the mounting tension.
My specific reason for saying that we should have a statement from the Foreign Secretary before the recess concerns the hanging of three Rhodesian Africans last night in Salisbury Prison. The House will recollect that this was by any standards an illegal act. It was not a judicial act. The Rhodesian régime has no judicial standing in this capacity. It has a de facto right to dispose of these men's lives.
It appears from the total silence of Her Majesty's Government that it is accepted here that people can be tried, can have their appeals heard and can then be executed without their names being published, without details of the charges brought against them, and without details of the defence that they make or the grounds upon which their appeals are rejected being published. I submit that that is a scandalous state of affairs. These executions were political just as much as the executions in 1968 which led my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, to suggest that the Royal Prerogative should be used—alas, to no avail—for the three men who were then under sentence of death.
I submit that as there are other unnamed and unknown Rhodesian Africans awaiting execution at this moment the House should know, before the Whitsun Recess, the Government's attitude on this matter. The House ought to know why the Government, who were so ready—I applauded them at the time—to intervene in the matter of the journalist Mr. Peter Niesewand, who faced no such grave charge or the possibility of no such extreme penalty, have been totally and utterly silent on this matter. It is a scandal.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is next due to Answer Questions in this House on 13th June. It is not good enough to suggest that we can wait for the Government's attitude on these matters until we return.
Other matters are at stake. In addition to the lives of the other three men who have been sentenced and are awaiting execution, there is the fate of a hostage, a British national, who has been captured by the freedom fighters and is being held outside Rhodesia. I refer to Mr. Gerald Hawkesworth. African nationalist leaders have said that if their compatriots are executed in Salisbury, Mr. Hawkesworth will be executed as a reprisal. Again, in this matter we have a right to know what the Government are doing to secure information about the whereabouts of Mr. Hawkesworth and what can be done to save him. I submit that nothing can or will be done to save Mr. Hawkesworth's life if the Government are not prepared to intervene in any


way regarding these imprisoned Africans who are to be executed.
We, as an assembly, should be especially careful that our concern in these matters is not selective. Our concern was rightly expressed, and I applauded it for Mr. Peter Niesewand. Our concern has not been manifested equally effectively for other detainees. Indeed, from time to time the Foreign Secretary has appeared not to know the names of other detainees, who have not had the privilege of the kind of trial to which Mr. Niesewand was subjected, when the fate of these people was raised at Question Time in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has not appeared to know much about Mr. Ngcebetsha, Mr. Chadzingwa, and other people who are currently detained, principally because they have opposed attempts by stooges of the illegal Rhodesian Government to collect signatures for an approach ostensibly from African opinion in Rhodesia to the Government asking for the Pearce settlement proposals to be put before the two Governments again and for sanctions to be lifted.
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to give us an undertaking that we shall hear something from his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary before we rise for the Whitsun Recess, to give us a further undertaking that there will be no meetings of any kind with the Smith regime before the House has had an opportunity to debate these matters more fully, and that the views expressed briefly today will be conveyed as forcefully as possible to the illegal Smith régime in Rhodesia.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I should like to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the deteriorating situation in Southern Rhodesia. We should express our great concern that three people should have been hanged in Rhodesia yesterday as the result of a secret trial, with no information being made available as to the charges.
The Government have expressed in a mild form the view that they disagree with secret trials. Certainly when the case of the journalist Mr. Peter Niesewand was raised, the Government said that it was right and proper that trials

should be held in public with the information being made available. But this contrasts greatly with the view that they have apparently taken regarding people on trial, whether it is under the Law and Order Maintenance Act or other legislation that charges are brought against them. Therefore, we see a great lack of concern by the Government for Africans who are black whereas they appear to be concerned only for Africans who are white. The Government must surely act in this matter.
It is clear that guerrilla activity in Southern Rhodesia will increase and escalate. The Government cannot rest on their laurels and say, "We have tried to settle the position by negotiation. It is not our responsibility. If people die as a result of guerrilla activity, that is beyond our charge and responsibility."
The responsibility for every act of violence in Southern Rhodesia, whether carried out by freedom fighters or day-to-day by the Smith régime, rests with the Government, because they maintain that Southern Rhodesia is not an independent State and is still under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government. As long as they take that view, the responsibility for anything that happens in Southern Rhodesia rests with the Government.
There is no doubt in my mind that it this House rises without clear statements about the future of Southern Rhodesia we shall be encouraging Africans to believe that they have been totally sold out by the Government and that the only solution to their problems is one of violent revolution. The Foreign Secretary has made it plain that in his view the latest proposals which he negotiated with the Smith régime are still to be left on the table and can form the basis of a settlement even though they may be modified. That clearly is not the attitude of the African people of Southern Rhodesia. They have clearly said that these proposals are totally unacceptable. It is the feeling that the British Government are still not prepared to listen to their voice that breeds the sense of frustration and violence.
There was widespread comment in both the international and British Press that after the sanctions debate in November we had had the last of such sanctions debates. It is clear that we must have a statement from the Government


before the House rises that they are prepared to continue sanctions for as long as they are necessary. The gloom that has been spread deliberately by supporters of the Smith régime stating that the Government intend to let things drift and to allow the Smith régime to carry on as it is must be dispelled.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North said, the Government have made noises about Peter Niesewand, Garfield Todd and Judith Todd, but they have made absolutely no noises about many other African leaders, some of whom have been in detention for as long as 10 years. One thinks immediately of Mr. Joshua Nkomo and the Rev. Sithole. These people have been in prison for 10 years. Certainly the Rev. Sithole had a trial of sorts, but he has been imprisoned for political offences.
As long as the Government are not prepared to take any serious action, the people in Southern Rhodesia will say, "There is only one thing that we can do. We must have recourse to our own resources to get our freedom."
I agree that there is nothing that we can do today about the people who were hanged yesterday. That act of murder has taken place. We should condemn it as murder. It is not a judicial process. It is a clear act of murder. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about those lives that have been taken. But we can take action to save the lives of the other three people who are due to be hanged in the next two to three days. Therefore, the Government must give us an assurance that they will take urgent action to save those three lives. If they can save those three lives, their credibility in Africa will rise to a tremendous extent.
At Question Time today an hon. Member said that he believed that the Government's stock with African countries was higher than it had ever been. I find that an incredible statement. The Government's stock is at an all-time low. If they want the co-operation of the whole of Africa on what is to happen in Southern Rhodesia, the Government must make every effort to save the lives of those three people at present in the death cell in Salisbury. That could do

a tremendous amount to change the future of Southern Rhodesia.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I would suggest that the House does not adjourn until we have had a statement from the Government about the Hardman Report. I support what has been said about the Rhodesian situation but want to deal with a problem of special significance to my area and the West of Scotland. The Leader of the House may think that this matter is becoming boring and repetitious, because several hon. Members have raised it before me, and I had an Adjournment debate on the subject.
In Glasgow alone, 2,000 school leavers are unemployed—many of them have been unemployed for a considerable period—and in the Glasgow travel-to-work area, there is 10 per cent. male unemployment. This is against the trend in many other areas. In Glasgow, we have about 400,000 square feet of empty new office accommodation, with another 500,000 to 600,000 square feet in the planning stage. We are therefore ready to accept a significant number of the jobs that are at present being discussed by the Cabinet.
The Hardman Report was supposed to come out at the beginning of this year. Then we were told that it was being considered by the Cabinet and that a statement would be issued shortly. The matter was raised again in the debate before the Easter Recess and, after my Adjournment debate, I received a courteous letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department which would have qualified for the Pulitzer Prize for ambiguity, if one were awarded. It was a two-page foolscap letter which said absolutely nothing. The Parliamentary Secretary has told me that he is always available for me to see him again.
It is regrettable that this has not been made a non-party issue. Labour Glasgow and West of Scotland Members who have been active in this campaign invited the Scottish Conservative Members for the West of Scotland to join us. It is a matter of deep regret to the people of Scotland that the Tory Members chose to refuse that invitation. We would not have set a precedent, since this happened when we made overtures about industrial development to a previous Government


some years ago. But we intend to press on as hard as humanly possible with the campaign so ably led by the Lord Provost and convenors of Glasgow, until the Government come out shortly with a statement on Hardman.
We do not underestimate the Government's difficulties in trying to disperse people from London, but the plan that I submitted to the Minister contained some inducements which, after discussion with Civil Service personnel, would have been readily accepted by many of the Civil Service people, particularly those expatriates who have had to leave Scotland to get jobs, many of them in London. This lack of decision is causing a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty in Scotland.
It is allied with cuts in Government expenditure. We have been assured in the Press that they will be minimal in Scotland, but we do not underestimate the threat that they represent to the jobs of many people. With well over 100,000 unemployed, we cannot afford any more, especially not among young people.
There has been a rise in emigration figures particularly since this Government came to power. When those figures rise, they mean that many of our best and most skilled young people are leaving Scotland. If regional policy is to mean anything—I do not doubt that the Government are sincere in this respect—there is no point in trying to invite private industry to Glasgow and the West of Scotland unless the skilled personnel are there. It would be to private industry a gesture of confidence in that area if the Government were to take the initiative by giving a substantial number of jobs, which could be created under Hardman, to that part of the world.
I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that any statement is not made during the recess but that hon. Members are able to question the Minister on this matter, and that a decision is made before the end of July. We cannot let this situation carry on indefinitely. The Government have been dragging their feet.
I do not wish to enumerate all the points I made in my earlier Adjournment debate, but I would ask the Minister to show some concern for the situation in my area. With rising unemployment and rocketing food prices, the economic

situation for many families is bleak. In Glasgow alone, the number of families who have absconded or who have been ejected from council houses because of rent arrears has doubled in the last two years. The social effects on those families, particularly the children, must be severe.
That situation will continue unless the Government provide a quick stimulus. A decision should be taken by the Cabinet on Hardman to ensure that Glasgow and the West of Scotland get a fair share—they are not asking for more than that—of the jobs that are being considered. If the Government are prepared to do that, they will boost confidence and the declining morale in that area. I hope that the Minister will say that the long overdue decision on Hardman will soon be made.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): Judging from the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members, it is obvious that this debate is being held in the context of a wide range of major national and international problems. But by far the most menacing and immediate is the state of our economy. I make no apology for returning to this subject and speaking about it again in terms similar to those I used during the Easter Recess.
In answering Questions for the Prime Minister today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he believed in open government, which he interpreted as giving the people information on which they could reach balanced judgments. That is what I am appealing for today—open government, information about the state of our economy.
I do so because, in the past few weeks, there has obviously been a massive public speaking campaign by Ministers to persuade the country that what we are enjoying is prosperity. In speech after speech, we hear about an unprecedented growth rate of 5 per cent. and upwards. If anyone doubts the claim, the 10 per cent. that appears on the bottom of all our bills now for VAT is an assurance that we are enjoying prosperity.
If we are to have open government, let us make it crystal clear to the people that this growth is being achieved simply by borrowing. I hope that the Leader of the House is listening. This year the


Government are borrowing £4,500 million in order to balance the Budget. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to deny that, I will sit down and allow him to do so. This year the Government will have to borrow anything from £600 million to £1,000 million to balance the books on our trading with other countries.
This kind of economic management requires no skill. All that it requires are the qualities of the gambler—irresponsibility and recklessness. Any fool can give himself temporary prosperity by borrowing. Any Government can create temporary prosperity by borrowing on this scale. In their early months we heard a great deal from the present Government about the debts that the Labour Government left. The debts that the Labour Government incurred in order to pay off the balance-of-payments deficit left by the Tory Government in 1964 were chicken feed compared with the borrowing that the present Government are now undertaking.
There is no assurance for our future in this kind of economic policy—not for full employment, for correcting regional imbalances, about which some of my hon. Friends have spoken, or for anything else. The kind of policy which is being pursued at present will produce, as it always has done, a short, hot, fool's summer, followed inevitably by a long, cold, hard winter of cut-back and unemployment.
The second thing that we ought to make clear if we are to have open government is the cause of the raging inflation that we have had since the present Government came to office. The inflation has been caused by two things: by the Government's borrowing requirements, plus the tax cuts for wealthy people. Those two factors together are the major cause of inflation. Wages have been only a very minor factor in the inflation which we have had in the last two years. We have now had six months of phase 1 and phase 2; complete freeze followed by severe restraint on wages—not on incomes, but on wages—but at the same time soaring food prices.
Surely the Leader of the House knows that this policy is bringing hardship to millions of people, to hundreds of thousands of families in which food accounts for 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.

of the weekly budget. I often wonder whether the Prime Minister ever goes shopping apart from buying new yachts. Does he ever buy the groceries? If he did, he would know that beef and bacon have disappeared from working-class homes and that pig meat is also on the way out. They are no longer bought.
Does the Prime Minister know that the old folk, the lower paid and people on fixed incomes are suffering because of his crazy policy? Does anyone in the Government know how working-class families live? Does the Prime Minister know how working-class families save up year after year so that they have a few hundred pounds in the bank when they retire? Over the last two years they have seen each £100 that they have in the bank reduced to £80 in value. There are no capital gains in the places where they put their money. Do the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister know about the heartbreak which young people are suffering today, because of the Government's policy, when trying to buy a house? Do they know of the even greater heartbreak of people who must rent a house, a heartbreak caused by the Government's policies?
Today the Chancellor urged local authorities to sell council houses. As I said to the Chancellor today, to sell council houses where there is an acute shortage of housing shows utter irresponsibility. The Chancellor said that he disagreed with me. The Chancellor must, then, agree that it is all right to sell council houses in an area where there is an acute, tragic shortage of houses to rent.
Before we go away for two weeks holiday, what has the Leader of the House to say about the sheer, utter misery which the policy of his Government is causing for so many people? It is an affront to those people, certainly to those whom I represent, to carry on talking about growth and prosperity, when the people equate the present Government with hardship, difficulty in making ends meet, worry and deprivation.
Within the last week we have had the Lonhro disclosures. They simply heighten the sense of frustration, deprivation, worry and hardship caused by the Government's policy. May I say how much I and, I am sure, all my hon. Friends


agree with remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on this subject. When I hear the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry attacking my right hon. Friend, I know that my right hon. Friend has been on the right lines. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is the defender of all the sleazy aspects of capitalism in this country. I protest in the strongest terms about the fact that the Lonrho inquiry is to be in private. What the Government have done is to put it out of sight until after the next General Election. They know that the inquiry will continue until after the General Election and that no mere will be heard about it. This is simply a device to keep it quiet until after the General Election. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that.
A further point that I wish to raise concerns the Prime Minister's visit to Paris this week. He is there talking on our behalf. He is talking on my behalf and one everyone's behalf. If he is talking on my behalf, I want to know what he has been talking about. There are four issues which, I am sure, are being discussed this week with President Pompidou. The first is the pegging of the pound. What is the Prime Minister agreeing about that? If any agreement is reached about that, I want to know about it immediately, because it will affect all the people whom I represent in the House.
The second issue is the Channel Tunnel. Is that being discussed? I should regard it as outrageous that this colossal amount of public investment should take place for a project of this kind when this country suffers such terrible regional imbalances. If that kind of capital is available for use, clearly it should go to the development areas of Britain and not into a project of this kind.
Thirdly, we have heard some ominous remarks recently about the organisation of a European nuclear deterrent. If anything is being talked about in that respect, on our behalf, we certainly want to know about it.
Fourthly, we want to know what the Prime Minister is saying to the French President about the utterly immoral persistence of the French Government in their Pacific nuclear test. What is the

Prime Minister saying? He has refused to say anything about this matter in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said today, we know that if these tests take place they will cause genetic damage to probably thousands of children who are yet unborn. The tests will take place against the wishes of all the neighbouring States and all the States around the Pacific. We want to know what the Prime Minister has said about this matter and what response he has had from the French President.
All these are extremely important topics. It is not right for the House to rise for two weeks for a spring holiday, which is not one of our traditional holidays, unless we get at least a very full report on all these issues.
There are also many subjects which we ought to be debating. One of the most important for millions of people is industrial safety. This affects millions of workers throughout the country. Yesterday we heard that the Government were accepting the Robens Report, but the workers in our factories, shipyards and pits want to be assured that their views on industrial safety are being put forward in this House. It is high time that we had a debate on that.
Those are some of the points. I am not at all sure that it is the right thing to go away for such a long holiday at a time like this, when there are so many pressing problems. I hope that the Leader of the House will try to answer all the points that have been put forward and to give us some assurances. If he is unable to assure us on a great many of the points raised, and at least about getting statements, I am not certain that we ought to approve the motion.

5.40 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Altogether 18 hon. Members have taken part in the debate. In recent times these debates have become important occasions on which hon. Members have a chance to raise subjects which at other times they might find difficult to raise. I shall deal with each hon. Member in turn and try to deal generally with the points which have been raised.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) raised the important question of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development meeting a deputation of Labour hon. Members from the North-West, and from Merseyside in particular, about redundancy. My right hon. Friend is prepared to meet a deputation. A meeting will have to be arranged at short notice. There are problems about ministerial engagements but I am certain that my right hon. Friend can fit in a meeting. If the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will make contact with my right hon. Friend's office a meeting will be fitted in.

Mr. Dell: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous intervention on our behalf.

Mr. Prior: It is disappointing that there has not been a greater fall in unemployment in Merseyside compared with the North-West region as a whole, where the numbers are down from 147,000 a year ago to 119,000 this year.
I turn to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). At the same time I shall deal with the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). Both my hon. Friends referred to the roads to the haven ports. Naturally, any cuts in Government expenditure on roads are bound to have some effect on development. My right hon. Friend expects to make substantial savings on maintenance, but some deferment will be necessary. The important point is that it will be in my right hon. Friend's discretion to decide which schemes should go ahead. We all recognise that there is a pressing need for improvements to be made to roads in East Anglia and, in particular, to roads to the haven ports. We all recognise that improvements are necessary to the roads to Harwich and Felixstowe. The haven ports have done an extremely good job in the last few years. I do not think that Governments have given enough attention to the roads to those ports and, perhaps, to East Anglia in general. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he makes his deferments, rather than cuts, during 1974–75.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich also asked me about the White Paper on local government finance. At the moment, I have nothing further to add to the statement which I gave him before the Easter Recess.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) asked me about the Government's attitude to devolution. It is well known that the Government's view is that powers should be more widely devolved. We think it right that people should be more involved with decisions that affect them. Precisely the way in which power should be devolved is under consideration. It is clear that firm decisions cannot be taken until we have received the report from the Royal Commission on the Constitution.
I turn to a matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). There is a firm commitment to publish a Green Paper on devolution in Scotland. He is absolutely right about that. I can assure the right hon. Member for Anglesey that the whole question of the devolution of powers is being considered carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart wanted a couple of days taken off the recess to debate regional policy and then the whole concept of law and order. My right hon. Friend will make a statement tomorrow on the outcome of the talks in which he has been actively engaged over the past few weeks about regional policy. We are confident of our ability to continue to give the regions the assistance which they need. We welcome the recent report which arises from the same commitment to accord regional policy high priority.
I listened to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) retailing the long period of years which it has taken the Common Market to come to decisions. I can tell him that we have been in the Common Market for four months and that we have already reached the stage at which decisions are about to be taken on regional development. I hope that instead of retailing to us his anti-Common Market speech he will in future give credit where credit is due. In fact, for the first time he welcomed something that has happened since we joined the Common Market. That is the first time I have known him do so. The


hon. Gentleman welcomed the EEC Green Paper and its regional policy. Gradually, like the rest of the Labour Party, the hon. Gentleman is being won over to the concept.
It is stated that the fund must be of a size related to the size of the problem which it has to tackle. We agree with that. The fund must be big enough at the outset to make a start in dealing with the real problems of regional imbalance. Further, it must be capable of growth. It should be noted that even if Britain's intermediate areas were not to be classified as peripheral in Community terms, the 20 per cent. figure which we would still be allowed to give on our own would far exceed the help being given at present in these areas. As I have said, we do not envisage that the EEC rules will lessen the incentives which Britain is able to offer under the Industry Act.
We have said that the regional employment premium scheme will be phased out over a period from September 1974. There will be no question of an abrupt termination. We are about to hold formal consultation with the CBI and the TUC about the right method of phasing-out the premium. We shall take into account the state of the economy and other relevant circumstances in reaching a decision.

Mr. Edward Short: What the right hon. Gentleman said is rather different from what has been said lately. I understand that the Government have been saying that they were prepared to have discussions on REP. The right hon. Gentleman now appears to be saying that there is a firm decision to phase it out. Is that so?

Mr. Prior: We have always made it perfectly plain that it was our policy to phase out REP. We have now said that we shall hold formal discussions with the CBI and the TUC about the right method of phasing it out. That is precisely and exactly the position which we have always taken. That has always been our policy.
I recognise that we shall need to have a general debate on law and order between now and the Summer Recess. I cannot promise a debate in the early weeks after we return.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) drew attention to Lonrho and complained about the type of inquiry which the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs has announced. The inquiry is under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948. There is nothing new or special in the fact that the inquiry is being held in private. Under the alternative form of inquiry under Section 109 of the Companies Act 1969 we could not have published a report. However, reports of such investigations into public companies are usually published unless there is a special reason to the contrary, such as the imminence of legal proceedings. The inquiry will be the normal type of inquiry under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948.
The hon. Member asked why a decision had not been first announced to Parliament. My right hon. Friend answered a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on Thursday afternoon, saying that he was considering the case and would obviously make his decision known as soon as he could. After a series of meetings on Friday we announced our decision at the earliest possible moment. I would have thought it was much better for the House and the country to have that decision announced as quickly as possible rather than to wait until Monday for it to be announced in the House.
It was out of no discourtesy to the House that the statement was made on the Friday. We thought the sooner it was made the better.

Mr. Lipton: Is there any reason why the Lonrho inquiry must be held in private?

Mr. Prior: It is an inquiry under Section 165 of the Act. Inquiries are usually conducted by an independent team of two inspectors, comprising an eminent lawyer and an accountant. Evidence is taken on oath and the inspectors can pursue their inquiries into the affairs of related companies. It is clear that a great deal of the inquiry would have to be held in private, and that is the way these matters are conducted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) spoke about


traffic congestion in the South-West and expressed his concern about lack of publicity of the holiday routes. I shall convey to the appropriate Minister his remarks on the need for better signposting and so on, in view of the growing numbers taking their holidays in the South-West, in the hope that more publicity can be given.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) raised the problem of the illegal immigrants who are caught under the terms of the 1971 Act. I shall report his comments to the Home Secretary and ask my right hon. Friend whether he can make a further statement or get in touch with the hon. Member. I do not have the information available to me at present to give him a satisfactory answer but I have carefully noted his point and I shall see that the Home Secretary is informed and gets in touch with the hon. Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) and another hon. Member mentioned Iceland. Whatever may be said about the rights and wrongs of the Icelandic situation, no one can deny that the Icelandic Government have broken an agreement which they entered into with us and, consequently, when this was taken to the Court of International Justice they refused to accept the jurisdiction of that court. We all regret very much the action first taken by the Icelandic Government, and we regret the action that we have been compelled to take. We have a perfect right to protect our fishing industry and our fishermen, and to see that the rule of law is maintained. It must be the Government's duty to ensure that.

Mr. Laurance Reed: At least 30 countries in the world now claim fishing rights beyond 50 miles. If my right hon. Friend intends to protect the existing international law, does that mean that he is prepared to send gunboats into all these areas? Are there enough gunboats to go around, or are we to anticipate a crash naval building programme?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend knows well enough that matters concerning fishing limits will come to be settled at the Law of the Sea Conference next year. That is the right time for these problems to be settled, just as they had to be settled in that manner the last time there

was a dispute. That will be the time for the countries to argue whether they should extend their limits to 12 miles, 50 miles, 200 miles, or even, in the case of one country, 600 miles. That is the right way to conduct these negotiations—not by a unilateral threat against the country and against fishermen who have traditionally fished these grounds for many years. Such action should certainly not be based on the spurious grounds of conservation. It can hardly be called conservation when the Icelandic fishing fleet is increasing at its present rate merely to take up the slack left when we phased out, as they wished us to agree to do.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) raised what I found to be a complicated point about the Social Security Bill and the provision for the setting up of the State reserve pension. I believe that he is mistaken in finding any conflict in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the information subsequently provided by the Treasury. My right hon. Friend's statement, to which the hon. Member's motion refers, was designed merely to illustrate the effect of splitting the reserve scheme contribution unequally in the employee's favour in terms of payment towards the employee's pension. My right hon. Friend did not claim that splitting the reserve scheme contribution unequally gave a net advantage to the generality of employees compared with splitting the contribution equally—2 per cent. per side —and giving tax relief on the employee's share. If the hon. Member had read the statement he would have seen that my right hon. Friend said:
Let me put the same point another way. Leaving aside the contribution which the employers will be paying anyway, the result of what the Government propose is that for each pound of an employee's contribution he will secure about £1·30 of benefit not by way of tax deduction as in an occupational scheme but by way of extra provided deliberately from the employer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1973 Vol. 856, c. 637.]
I do not see how the hon. Member justifies the accusation he made against my right hon. Friend.

Mr. George Cunningham: I understand, as the right hon. Gentleman has made clear, that he has found it difficult to follow this matter. The Secretary of State explicitly said that he was shifting


£40 million from the employees' shoulders to the employers' shoulders and the reply from the Treasury explicitly states—and we knew it would before we got the reply, but I sought the reply because no one would believe it from me—as follows
On the figures quoted the total net cost to employees is very approximately £120 million under each system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 23.]
The situation is perfectly clear. There is a negligible net transfer from employers to employees of £2·3 million compared with a £40 million transfer as claimed by the Secretary of State. I maintain that that is falsification of the facts.

Mr. Prior: It seems quite clear that the Secretary of State was not claiming a net advantage for the employee under one system compared with the other and as such this was entirely consistent with the written reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury which said:
The total net cost to employees is very approximately £120 million under each system. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 23.]
I have examined the matter with some care and I cannot see any inconsistency. My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear in the second part of his speech what the intention was. There is no question of this being misleading.

Mr. Cunningham: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what was the point of the Secretary of State's reference to this? Surely the purpose was to say that a benefit had been given to employees. What was the point of the statement, if it is admitted that a negligible net transfer is involved?

Mr. Prior: The whole point was to explain to the House—and to some of my hon. Friends who were worried about this—the effect of transferring more from the employer to the employee in this case. But I will read this little exchange carefully, and also what the hon. Gentleman said, and will tell my right hon. Friend about it. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that there was no inconsistency.
I turn now to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and other hon. Members who mentioned the question of the French nuclear tests. One or two hon. and right hon. Gentlemen told me that they had to leave before the

end of the debate, including the hon. Member for West Lothian, who is always most courteous on these occasions.
I must tell the House—as the Prime Minister reminded us on Thursday, 10th May—that the French Government are and have long been well aware of our views. We hope that they will in due course accede to the partial test-ban treaty of 1963, which prohibits nuclear testing in the atmosphere. I cannot go further than that today.

Mr. Edward Short: The trouble is that we do not know what the Government's views are about these tests. The Prime Minister says that the French Government are aware of them, but we are not. What are the Government's views on these Pacific tests?

Mr. Prior: The Government have always made their views clear on these Pacific tests. They have always made it clear that they very much hope that the French Government will accede to the test-ban agreement. It must follow that the Government would much prefer these tests to be conducted within the terms of the test-ban agreement. I would have thought that that was an abundantly clear position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) raised the question of Maplin and the Channel tunnel. He suggested that if we had cancelled Maplin it would have resulted in a saving in excess of what my right hon. Friend announced yesterday. I must tell him that there would have been no saving at all in the year 1974–75. Turning for a minute to the question of the Channel tunnel, I hope to arrange a debate on the subject shortly after the Whitsun Recess.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised the question of the contacts between the National Industrial Relations Court and outside bodies. The NIRC is not answerable to the Government for the way in which it conducts its business. At the opening of the court in December 1971 the President of the court made it plain that it would welcome informed and constructive criticism from any quarter. If this involves informal exchanges with bodies representing either side of industry about the general working of the Industrial Relations Act, that is a matter which it is proper to leave to the court's discretion.


I think that is a very clear statement of the position and I hope the hon. Member will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable point of view.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is confusing something. There is surely no objection to anyone's going along to the court and talking in general terms, but this is about specific discussions in relation to amendments to an Act which was passed by this House. This, surely, is a procedure which cannot be tolerated by this House or by anyone who is concerned about the relationship of the judiciary with the general public, particularly when these people could be litigants who would come before that court at a certain stage. Surely that is a most disgraceful situation.

Mr. Prior: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think it is perfectly reasonable that informal discussions and exchanges should go on in this matter about the general workings of the Industrial Relations Act. I would have thought that, on the whole, the hon. Gentleman would have been one of the first to say that this is a matter which is properly left to the court's discretion, and that it is quite a reasonable thing to happen.
I come now to the questions on Rhodesia raised by the hon. Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes). There have been many Parliamentary Questions about Rhodesia recently, and the Government's policy on this problem has been made quite clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. In relation to the present position, my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question on 17th May that he thought it was
essential that there should be discussions between Mr. Smith and representatives of other races in Rhodesia in a further attempt to get a settlement.
He went on:
I am certain that if those discussions take place the question of the detainees is bound to be raised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 1698.]
Certainly I can inform the hon. Gentleman that we have raised the problem of detainees with the Rhodesian authori-

ties but unfortunately have not had any success.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Mr. Hawkesworth. Again I can tell him that we have made inquiries about Mr. Hawkesworth from the Zambian, Tanzanian and Mozambique authorities but so far have obtained no information about his whereabouts.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other point which my hon. Friend and I raised—that it is not a matter of detainees but of three men who have been hanged and others who will be hanged in the next few days? What is the Secretary of State going to do about those men who await the death sentence?

Mr. Prior: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will have to realise that we have no power to control these events, just as we had no power to control them in 1968 when nothing we were able to do prevented the same thing happening. So I am afraid there is no action further to the action we have already taken that is possible in these circumstances. However regrettable it may be, there is nothing that we are actually able to do.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) asked me—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes rose—

Mr. Prior: I am not going to give way any more on Rhodesia. I have already given way to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

Mr. Robert Hughes: There are lives at stake. It is too important for the right hon. Gentleman to say he will not give way.

Mr. Prior: Very well, I will give way when I have finished this answer.
Coming to the question the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals asked me, the Hardman Report will be published after the recess and announcements will be made at that time in both Houses of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear of going away for the recess and the report coming out during the recess. I hope that will be some consolation to him.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again.


This is a matter that concerns people who are at the moment waiting to be taken from their cells to the gallows. Will the right hon. Gentleman not say that the Government will make a clear declaration that they regard the hanging of these men as murder? Will he not tell the Smith régime that if they proceed with the hanging of the three men at present under sentence, all the proposals for settlement will from that moment be totally withdrawn, that a wholly different position will apply in relation to the Smith régime from that moment on?

Mr. Prior: I am not prepared to do that because I do not believe it would be in the interests of trying to reach a settlement between the races in Rhodesia, which in the long run is the only way of preventing the unfortunate and very regrettable things which are now going on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that we feel equally strongly about these matters, but we are unable to take any more action now than their Government were able to take when they were in office. That is the situation which, regrettably, we have to accept.
I turn now to the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), which I found very engaging, coming as it does before we adjourn for a recess.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Government's prosperity being engineered on borrowing. At least it is borrowing within our country and not overseas. We have repaid the £1,500 million debt that was left when we came to office. What is more, we have almost doubled our reserves in the past two and a half years.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about inflation. We all recognise that we have severe problems of rising prices. There is no one who is not fully aware of that, and who does not regret it immensely. But during stage 1 the costs of imported raw materials and fuel for manufacturers rose by 15 per cent. whereas their prices went up by only 1½ per cent. For food manufacturers the cost of raw materials went up by over 16 per cent., whereas their prices rose by only 2 per cent. These figures show how stringent were the price controls, and they indicate the degree to which cost increases have been absorbed.
At the end of last November our rate of inflation was perhaps the fastest in the western world, and now it is just about the slowest. Therefore, I think we can say that in the past few months we have achieved a great deal.
We have done something else. We have shown that this country can sustain a 5 per cent. a year economic expansion, over twice as fast as under Labour. The Sun, commenting on yesterday's expenditure deferments, said today:
It makes sense now that Britain is booming and unemployment is falling. … It makes sense, too, to plan ahead for continued growth.
It is always quite useful to consider some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), who has said:
The ironical fact is that in that period
—when the previous Labour Government were in office—
we indefatigably went on increasing our public expenditure section despite the lack of growth and therefore had to tax the worker in ways which probably lost us the Election.
In other words, the Labour Government went for high taxation, low growth and greater Government expenditure—[An HON. MEMBER: "And stable prices."] Come off it. Anyone who wants a return to high taxation and stagnation—[Interruption.]—We are taxed £3,000 million a year less than we were taxed three years ago, and most of that reduction has gone to the lower wage-earners, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
What would a future Labour Government do? We should have the dreary old business of more nationalisation of many of our successful companies. We should have stagnation again, higher taxation, no growth and no prosperity. We are now set on a path that this country has not known for many years. Thank heavens, we at last have a chance to break out of the problems of stop-go.
I know how worried the Opposition are. I hope that they will go away in the Whitsun Recess and find out just what their constituents are saying.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday 11th June.

DRAINED WEIGHT BILL

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Watkins, Ten-Minute Rule Bill—at last.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the drained weight of foods canned or otherwise pre-packed in liquid to be displayed on the outside of the can or container, to regulate the canning and pre-packing of foods in liquid, and for purposes connected therewith.
As you say, Mr. Speaker, "at last"—after the protracted wait during the debate on all the reasons why the House should not adjourn for the Whitsun Recess, I now seek leave to introduce a Bill on the subject of drained weight. The Long Title refers to this as
A Bill to require the drained weight of foods canned or otherwise pre-packed in liquid to be displayed on the outside of the can or container, to regulate the canning and pre-packing of foods in liquid, and for purposes connected therewith.
The term "drained weight" has come more and more into use in the House and in the country, but some hon. Members may be slightly mystified by it, so I shall first give a definition. It is, simply, the weight of fruit or vegetables or any other canned food measured when the can is opened and the liquid is drained off.
The National Federation of Consumer Groups has carried out a great deal of work and conducted surveys and research into the proportions of liquid and solid matter in canned food stuffs. Its surveys have revealed that there is a growing problem in the apparently increasing amount of liquid as a proportion of the weight of canned foods. Its surveys have revealed that there is need for legislation to protect the consumer.
In a tin of canned fruit or vegetables as much as a half or two-thirds of the weight may be liquid. I shall substantiate that statement by quoting first from evidence gathered in a survey conducted by the North-East Region consumer groups in co-operation with the Consumer Group at Cheltenham. A large amount of tinned food of various sorts was bought at those opposite ends of the country.
I should like to give two examples, which are not untypical of the general

result. Of 13 samples of mandarin oranges, the lowest content of liquid in weight was 23 per cent., which I would regard as a very reasonable figure. The highest amount of liquid was no less than 64 per cent., almost two-thirds of the total weight of the tin. In the same survey, in seven samples of tinned carrots the lowest amount of liquid took up 13 per cent. of the weight and the highest was no less than 48 per cent. Those variations alone indicate that it is very much a matter of luck as to how much food the purchaser obtains and how much liquid he buys.
Some very interesting further information came out of the same survey. A 15-oz. tin of Smedley's strawberries purchased in Cheltenham contained 10-oz. of liquid. A 10-oz. tin of strawberries of the same brand purchased in Durham contained 4½ oz. of liquid. Therefore, there was the utterly ridiculous situation that the larger and more expensive tin contained less fruit than the smaller and cheaper tin. This evidence points to the need for some form of legislation for the protection of consumers.
In addition to the splendid work done by the National Federation of Consumer Groups, there is plenty of other evidence all pointing in the same direction. Miss Beryl Downing, in her Friday shopping column in the London Evening News on 16th February, recounted how she had bought a number of tins of fruit, entirely at random, and checked up on them. The best of five tins of grapefruit of varying brands, sizes and prices had 12¼ oz. of fruit and 8 oz. of liquid. The worst contained 11 oz. of each—a 50 per cent. drained weight
Miss Downing also quoted that all except one of five tins of strawberries which she purchased had more liquid in them than they had fruit.
Miss Mary Griffiths of the Daily Mirror, who also writes articles on consumer matters in that newspaper, wrote to me a short time ago indicating that of a 7½ oz. tin of Woolworths brand strawberries which she had purchased and which had cost 8p, almost 77 per cent.—that is, over three-quarters—of the weight was liquid.
The consumer protection department of the West Sussex County Council has carried out its own survey, which has


revealed exactly the same sorry story in a wide range of tinned products which were purchased.
It is not surprising that Mr. Manley, the deputy chief inspector of the department, wrote to me on 15th February enclosing a copy of the survey and the conclusions of his department. He said:
This is a subject in which this Department is very interested, having received a number of consumer complaints about excess juice.
I submit that it is hardly surprising that that consumer protection department, in common with other people interested in this matter, should have received many complaints.
I have quoted to the House evidence of canned food purchased in the North, the West, the South and here, in the capital city of London. I submit to the House, on that evidence from all parts of the country, that there is every cause for concern, and that there is a need for legislation to regulate the position.
I have repeatedly raised the matter at Question Time with Ministers of the Department of Trade and Industry. I note that the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery)—is in the House. He will recall that he has been subjected to a number of my questions on these matters. He will also recall that on every occasion when his Department was first on the Order Paper between Christmas and Easter, I tabled Questions. Furthermore, I was supported in the demand for legislation by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, I see some of the hon. Members in question now present.
I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in being present. As has been said, we have had a very long wait. I know the Minister has been very busy, and that he has other engagements to fulfil. I express my gratitude to him for being present in the House to hear me this afternoon. But no legislation has been forthcoming. Since the Government have been so dilatory, I have felt compelled to seek to introduce my own Bill. If the House gives me permission so to do this afternoon, the Bill will be submitted by co-sponsors, again, on both sides of the House.
Mine will be a short Bill. It will define the drained weight in accordance with

the internationally accepted definition laid down by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation. One could not have better standards than those internationally laid-down and accepted ones. I accept that there are certain foods that it would be difficult to measure in accordance with those standards. As my Bill would be essentially a reasonable one, it would contain a schedule which would list any foods it might prove impossible to measure by that definition. I believe that some provision in that direction has to be made. My Bill would make such provision.
Above all, the main principle of the Bill, which would be contained in Clause 1, would make it an offence to sell canned food without displaying the drained weight on the outside of the can. It has been represented to me that many people enjoy the juice, and that is undoubtedly so. But people have a right to know what proportion of fruit or vegetables they are buying and what proportion of juice is contained in the tin. My Bill would seek to give them the protection of knowing that when they make the purchase.
I submit that this Bill is necessary to protect consumers. I believe it will be widely acceptable in the House and in the country. I urge the House to give me leave to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mrs. Doris Fisher. Miss Janet Fookes, Miss Joan Lestor, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Edward Taylor and Mr. Alan Williams.

DRAINED WEIGHT

Bill to require the drained weight of foods canned or otherwise pre-packed in liquid to be displayed on the outside of the can or container, to regulate the canning and pre-packing of foods in liquid, and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

Orders of the Day — PAKISTAN BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. J. Enoch-Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have on the Order Paper today, following this order, the Bangladesh Bill. I do not suggest that it should be permissible to refer in detail to that Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that you will think it right and for the convenience of the House that it is appropriate to refer in general terms to the change of status of Bangladesh as well as Pakistan, as it is very difficult to keep the two subjects distinct or to discuss the matter intelligibly if reference can be made only to Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker: It is, I think, the rule of the House that a Second Reading debate should be very wide. Although, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, it would be wrong to go into the other measure in detail, I think that references to it will certainly be in order.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On 30th January 1972 the Government of Pakistan announced that, having learnt that Britain, Australia and New Zealand intended to recognise Bangladesh, Pakistan had decided to leave the Commonwealth with immediate effect. President Bhutto of Pakistan told a subsequent Press conference that Pakistan's withdrawal was final and irrevocable. We were sorry about that decision, because for many years we had enjoyed the intimate association with Pakistan and its leaders that is provided by the Commonwealth association.
But the Commonwealth is a free association of sovereign States, and any member is at liberty, at any time, to leave it if that country so chooses. It was a decision that Pakistan was entitled to take.
I am happy to say that our relations with Pakistan remain good, and we shall do our best to see that they continue to be so in the future. Nevertheless, our relations with a foreign country, however close, are different in a number of respects from those with a member of the Commonwealth, and our relations with Pakistan have inevitably changed.
Some of the effects of Pakistan's decision became apparent almost at once. Pakistan ceased to participate in Commonwealth consultations and ceased to benefit from organisations or funds such as Commonwealth scholarships, which were specifically intended for members of the Commonwealth. Pakistan missions in Commonwealth capitals changed their titles from high commissions to embassies.
In the case of Britain's relations with Pakistan, some of the necessary changes could be made by administrative act. But in some cases our treatment of Pakistan as a Commonwealth country is embodied in British law, and until the law is changed Pakistan, and Pakistanis in this country, continue to enjoy, in some respects, the privileges of Commonwealth membership, even though Pakistan has left the Commonwealth. The Bill now before the House is, therefore, designed to make the necessary changes to British law to bring it into line with the new situation.
We have taken time to introduce this legislation—for a very humane reason. As the House knows, a considerable number of Pakistanis have settled in this country and we felt it right to avoid giving them the impression that we were taking precipitate action against them. Also, as the House will see as I proceed, there are many complexities in this legislation at present, which I think can account for the time we have taken to prepare this Bill.
In preparing the Bill we were guided by two principles—first, that the value of the Commonwealth should not be diluted by allowing a country which had left the Commonwealth, or its citizens, indefinitely to enjoy those privileges which derive solely from Commonwealth membership and, secondly, that we should be fair and humane to those Pakistanis who came to Britain before Pakistan left the Commonwealth in the


firm belief and calculation that they would be entitled to certain benefits and conditions of life.
The most important provisions of the Bill are those relating to nationality and citizenship, so I will deal with them first. They are contained in Clause 1 and Schedules 1 and 2. The change in Pakistan's status is symbolised by the deletion of Pakistan from Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948. This is done by Clause 1(1). It means that from Royal Assent to the Bill Pakistan's citizens will become aliens. But we have to bear in mind the Pakistanis who had already come to live in this country before Pakistan left the Commonwealth, and the need not to cause hardship by depriving them suddenly of the privileges of Commonwealth citizenship which they had hitherto enjoyed.
We have made provision for three types of resident Pakistanis. Included in Schedule 2(2) is a provision whereby Pakistani citizens who will have completed five years' residence in this country when the Bill becomes law will have a grace period of six months in which to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We believe that this period, following what will have been five years of residence already, is sufficient for them to make up their minds.
Then there are a number of Pakistanis who took up residence in this country before 30th January 1972 but will not have completed five years' residence in this country by the time this Bill becomes law. They also will become aliens, but, under Schedule 2(2), when they have completed their five years' residence they also will have a grace period of six months in which to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies if they so wish. I should emphasise, however, that these provisions will apply to those who were Pakistani citizens and were resident in this country on 30th January 1972.
Lastly, those Pakistanis who came here after the date when Pakistan left the Commonwealth do not benefit from the special provisions of the Bill in regard to registration. The same applies to those who acquired Pakistani citizenship after that date. It will, of course, be open to any Pakistani citizen not covered by the transitional provisions, or who does not

make use of them, to apply for naturalisation after five years' residence.
I hope that whatever emotion may be stirred up by general immigration policies these provisions will broadly be judged to be just in relation to Pakistan.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation of the Government's thinking and justification for excluding the Azad Kashmiris from the benefits of registration?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will deal with that point in order.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Were any of those in the last category mentioned by my right hon. Friend—those who entered the United Kingdom after Pakistain had seceded—in any way led to believe when they immigrated into the United Kingdom that their status would be in any way different from that of their immigrant predecessors?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. They knew that their country had left the Commonwealth and they had no reason to believe that they would be treated as other Pakistanis who had been here before Pakistan left the Commonwealth. It is a reasonable distinction.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take the view that it was reasonable for these people to assume that they might be treated in the same way as the citizens of South Africa were treated when it was expelled from the Commonwealth?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman will recall that South Africa became a republic and left the Commonweath at the same time. The legislation was, first, a provisional Bill to deal with the republic aspect and then, a year later, another Bill to deal with the issues of substance. All those who have come to this country since Pakistan left the Commonwealth had no doubt that they would not be treated in the same way as those who had been here a good many years before.
We do not wish abruptly to take away from Pakistanis privileges which they enjoyed in this country when Pakistan left the Commonwealth, but we believe that


it would be illogical and against the principles that I mentioned earlier to give people new benefits which they did not have in this country on 30th January 1972.
The House will wish to have some idea of the numbers involved. There are four main categories. First, there are about 45,000 people from the former undivided Pakistan who have been here for over five years and have already been registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I emphasise that these are people in total, and not just heads of families.
Secondly, there are between 60,000 and 80,000 people—I cannot be more accurate on present knowledge—who came from West Pakistan, who were in this country on 30th January 1972, and who have not yet been registered as United Kingdom citizens. Included in this group are between 20,000 and 30,000 people who carry Pakistani passports describing them as natives of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. I shall come to that aspect later.
The majority of the rest will have lived here for over five years and will qualify for the six months' grace period. But some came here before 30th January 1972 but will not yet have been here for five years and are not, therefore, yet qualified for registration. This group will also be entitled to a six months' grace period in which to apply for registration, after they have completed their five years' residence. In addition to these figures there will be a number of dependents who have not yet come to Britain but are at present entitled to do so if they wish.
Although not covered by this Bill—I now come to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—there are also between 40,000 and 50,000 people originally from Bangladesh who have not yet registered. Under the Bangladesh Bill, which we are also debating today, Bangladesh citizens in this country will acquire the status of Commonwealth citizens. Because they were Pakistani citizens before, there will be no practical change in their situation.
Finally, there are those who will not qualify for registration. As I have said, there are in this country between 20,000 and 30,000 people who came here with Pakistani passports describing them as natives of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. When Pakistan left the Commonwealth, people in this category, who were not treated by the Government of Pakistan as Pakistan citizens, did not enjoy the benefits of Commonwealth citizenship. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) will remember that in the time of the Labour Government they were also treated differently from Pakistan citizens. They were not eligible to register as United Kingdom citizens after five years' residence, but had to apply for naturalisation. Neither were they eligible to hold certain offices and employments. such as employment in the Civil Service, or vote or stand for office in national and local elections.
In February 1973, however, a year after leaving the Commonwealth the Government of Pakistan published a decree admitting them to Pakistan citizenship. If we allowed these people now to benefit from the arrangements for registration under this Bill, it would mean that we were granting them privileges which they did not enjoy at the time when Pakistan left the Commonwealth and which they have never enjoyed since they had a relationship with the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Indian residents in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir have enjoyed Indian citizenship and that Pakistan, by adhering to successive United Nations Security Council resolutions is being penalised through the status of her overseas residents in the United Kingdom for registration purposes?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend is right. The status of these people was in dispute for a long time. There is no question of any of these people becoming stateless. They are Pakistani citizens by a recent decree of the Pakistani Government.

Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the status of these people? He will be aware that in Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948 there is a definition of a British


protected person. The definition says that it means:
a person who is a member of a class of persons declared by Order in Council made in relation to any protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory to be for the purposes of this Act British protected persons by virtue of their connection with that protectorate, state or territory;
Were these people at one stage British protected persons? If they were they were exempt from the provisions of the various Aliens Acts and orders. If they have lost the status of British protected persons under the 1948 Act they will have lost something as a result of the passage of this Bill.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give him a complete answer later. It is immensely complicated. I understand that these people were not treated in the same way as other British protected persons. By a recent decree of the Pakistani Government they are Pakistani citizens, so there is no danger, as was suggested in one newspaper this morning, that they will become stateless persons. What used to happen was that they came with Pakistani passports but with a notice on them saying that they were citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. The citizenship of such people was indeterminate because of the dispute about the territory. Now their citizenship has been legalised by an act of the Pakistani Government.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say what will be the position if the Pakistan Government were to introduce the sort of retrospective legislation which is proposed in this Bill?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot say what the position would be. As the Pakistani Government have just passed legislation to make these people citizens I would have thought it extremely unlikely that this would be done.
There are about 500 Pakistan heads of families who arrived here after Pakistan left the Commonwealth who will also not benefit from the provisions of this Bill for registration and neither will their dependants.
The net result of all this is that unless they already possess citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or unless

and until they acquire such citizenship by registration or naturalisation, Pakistani citizens will be aliens under United Kingdom law and will be treated as such.
This has a number of consequences for Pakistanis in this country since aliens are disqualified from holding certain offices and employments. These include Government service. Aliens are also barred from voting and from serving on local authorities.
Here again, however, we believed that it was only fair to allow some time so that the change could be made as smoothly as possible and with as little inconvenience as possible to individuals.
We have provided, in Clause 3(1) and (2) for Pakistanis holding appointments from which, as aliens, they would be debarred, to continue to hold their appointments for six months from the time this Bill becomes law.
This will give them time either to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, if they are qualified, or to seek other employment. Steps are being taken to ensure that this provision is brought to the attention of those likely to be affected.
Similarly, Pakistani citizens who are at present entitled to vote will continue under Clause 3(3) to be so entitled until 16th February 1974, when the new electoral register comes into force. This is because it would be administratively impossible to identify and delete the names of all Pakistani citizens from the existing register.
Also in Clause 3(3) is a provision stating that a Pakistani citizen who is a member of a local authority will be allowed to continue to serve until his membership ceases on some other ground, for example until his term of office expires. These people have been elected for a certain term and we thought it wrong that they should not be allowed to serve out their term.
As regards immigration, once this Bill comes into force, Pakistanis wishing to come to this country will be treated exactly the same as any other aliens under the provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act and the immigration rules. Similarly, the entry into this country of dependants of Pakistanis already here who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and


Colonies, will be governed by the normal provisions for the dependants of aliens.
We have, however, made some transitional provisions regarding deportation. Section 7 of the 1971 Act restricts the liability to deportation of a Commonwealth citizen who was resident in this country when the Act came into force on 1st January 1973. This exemption must eventually cease to apply to Pakistani citizens in this country since they will no longer be Commonwealth citizens, but Schedule 3 (1) provides that Pakistani citizens shall continue for six months to enjoy these exemptions, as if they were still Commonwealth citizens.
If, when the six months' period expires, a Pakistani citizen in this country has applied for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but his application has not, at that time, been determined, he will continue to be treated as a Commonwealth citizen, in respect of deportation, until his application has been determined.
Clause 2 deals with Pakistan's position in the Commonwealth Preference area. Under the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community the duties which the United Kingdom levies on goods from Pakistan from 1st January 1974 must be based on the duty we applied on 1st January 1972.
In the intervening months Pakistan will, whether or not she remains in the Commonwealth Preference area, continue to enjoy a large measure of duty-free access to the United Kingdom market as a beneficiary of the generalised preference scheme. As a result of this the only products of any consequence on which duties would be raised if Pakistan left the Commonwealth Preference area would be cotton textiles and footwear, the volume of which would be unlikely to be affected.
We have therefore decided that it would be sensible to allow Pakistan to remain in the Commonwealth Preference area, as did South Africa.
The other provisions of the Bill are more technical. Clause 4(2) provides for the repeal of certain statutory provisions which are no longer appropriate to Pakistan as a foreign country outside the Commonwealth.

Clause 4(3) provides for the removal of Pakistan from the governing body of the Imperial War Museum, and subsection (4) deletes the mention of Pakistan from various orders which relate to Commonwealth countries.
Subsection (5) provides that Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth shall not affect the validity of divorces made under the Indian and Colonial Jurisdiction Acts 1926 and 1940. It also provides for the maintenance in force of the order relating to the reciprocal enforcement of judgments between this country and Pakistan. The Bill applies to Northern Ireland and Clause 5 makes provision accordingly.
In Schedule 3 there are three other provisions which I should explain. Paragraph (2) provides for the registration of births and deaths of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies which took place in Pakistan whilst it remained a Commonwealth country in our law to be undertaken by Her Majesty's Consular Officers who normally exercise such powers only in foreign countries.
Paragraph (3) provides that companies registered in this country but keeping a branch register in Pakistan should close that register after a six-month grace period from the date when the Bill becomes law. Paragraph (4) provides that doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons qualified in Pakistan who are now registered as Commonwealth practitioners or are on Commonwealth lists, shall be allowed to retain that status. That seems a sensible provision.
This is as brief a summary as I can make of the contents of what inevitably is a complicated Bill which covers a wide variety of fields and illustrates the manifold nature of the Commonwealth connection. Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth was one which we all regret, but one which we accept. In drafting this Bill we have tried to ensure that Pakistan and her citizens do not retain privileges which derive entirely from Commonwealth membership—that would be wrong—but we have also tried to be fair to Pakistani citizens who had already come to this country when Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth was taken. In short, we have tried to be just and humane. I hope that on the whole we have succeeded.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Listening to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs opening this debate, I was reminded of a story which I believe was told about the late Sir Thomas Beecham. He was once asked what he did when he lost his place in the score of a new production which he did not like, did not know very well and did not understand. He replied, "Heads down, wave, and hope they will keep up with me." This afternoon we had a good example from the Foreign Secretary of heads down, stick to the brief and avoid difficult questions, which should be left to the Minister who is to conclude the debate.
I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are one or two aspects of the Bill which we shall have to examine—I hope in non-too-great detail. Questions about immigration and citizenship I shall leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) because he is far more qualified to deal with those matters than I am.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Heads down!

Mr. Richard: No. On the contrary, the quality of a piece of music of these things is usually judged after the performance, not before.
I say this about the Bill: this is a singularly unhappy occasion, particularly when one remembers the high hopes with which Pakistan became independent in 1947, joined the Commonwealth and participated in all the benefits of Commonwealth membership which the Foreign Secretary has spelled out today. Perhaps the unitary nation then created out of East and West Pakistan, by its very nature, could not survive. It may be that the strain of trying to produce one unit out of those two disparate parts of the sub-continent was an endeavour doomed to failure from the outset, but I think it was probably right to make the attempt. I think it is equally right, however, now that we have come to recognise and accept the twin realities of Pakistan and Bangladesh both independent, both self-governing and both in the same sub-continent.
I agree, too, with what the Foreign Secretary said when he described the objective of the Bill as trying to deal

with the consequential effects of Pakistan's having left the Commonwealth and attempting to be fair to those citizens of Pakistan who, over the last quarter of a century, have come to this country, many of whom have made their permanent home here. I take no objection whatever to the Government's having taken time to produce this piece of legislation. My only qualification is not that they have brought the Bill forward too late but whether they have brought it forward rather sooner than need be. After all, crucial to this Bill and crucial to the whole consideration of the consequential effects of Pakistan's leaving the Commonwealth, is the fact that the Government are satisfied that there is no real possibility of Pakistan's changing its mind and re-opting for membership of the Commonwealth.
If the situation arose in which Pakistan decided, in the relatively near future, that she wished again to have the benefits of Commonwealth membership, I suppose that we would go through the exercise of repealing this measure so that we could reconfer on Pakistan the benefit of Commonwealth membership which we are now taking from that country and its citizens. Therefore, if the Government are satisfied that there is no real possibility of Pakistan changing its mind, this Bill is necessary. If there is any doubt about it, I would have hoped that the Government would have taken a little more time before bringing the Bill before the House.
Looking at some of the fine print in the Bill before coming to the three main points I wish to make, I suggest that we shall have some extraordinarily delicate idiocies concerning the voting provisions. I do not know what the poor electoral registration officer is to do if Mr. Singh or Mr. Kahn comes to the polling station and says that he wishes to be a voter in that district. If Mr. Singh or Mr. Kahn comes from what used to be West Pakistan but is not yet registered as a United Kingdom and Colonies citizen, under the provisions of the Bill he would not be entitled to have his name on the voting register. If he comes from what used to be East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh, presumably he would be entitled to have his name on the register. If he comes from Kashmir, although in the past he was on the register—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: indicated dissent.

Mr. Richard: The Foreign Secretary shakes his head, but I have received a letter about this. If Mr. Singh used to be on the register he will not now be entitled to be on the register and not entitled to vote. I suspect that what will happen as a result of that part of the Bill dealing with registration will not be that the registration officer in each district will go through the list making extremely fine geographical and political divisions among respective voters. I suspect that all the Mr. Singhs will go down on the register. In reality it will be a nightmare for electoral officers to have to operate the Act.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the hon. Member agree that the Singhs would not be the difficulty because as East Punjabis their status is clear? The difficulty would be that the registration officer would have to demand their passports or some other identification to do his job, which is a totally new departure.

Mr. Richard: I think the hon. Member is quite right. Then the matter will become extremely complicated. It will depend, not only on what passport Mr. Singh holds, but, I understand, on the date at which the passport was issued, because as from February this year a person who used to be a Kashmir citizen is now a Pakistan citizen and he would, therefore, be subject to the Pakistani procedure. How the registration officer is to sort all this out in a meaningful way, I have no idea.
There are however three main points in the Bill which cause some of us—I think most of us in the Opposition—difficulty. The first is the problem of retrospection. There is an element of retrospection in this Bill. It arises from the provisions of Schedule 2, particularly from the provisions of Schedule 2(1), and the use of the word "before" in line 8 of subparagraph (a). I believe that those Pakistanis who at the time of the presentation of this Bill are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom without being subject to any law relating to immigration or restriction on the period for which they might remain should be treated as being eligible for registration

as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Pakistanis who arrived in this country between 30th January 1972, the date on which Pakistan left the Commonwealth, and 14th May 1973, the date of the presentation of the Bill, entered this country not under Pakistani laws but under United Kingdom laws. At that time they were admitted in exactly the same way as people who had been admitted before 30th January 1972. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) smiles. I fear that I may be giving him some comfort in part of the arguments which he used to advance. The fact of the matter is, however, that whether a particular Pakistani citizen came to this country before or after 30th January 1972, he came under the provisions of British law, which means that until this Act is passed he is still a "Pakistani" and a "Commonwealth" citizen. Although Pakistan has left the Commonwealth, nevertheless he will technically and legally in British law, until we pass this Act, be a Commonwealth citizen.
Since there is no legal distinction in British law whatever between the gentleman who arrives on 29th January and the gentleman who arrives on 31st January 1972, I cannot for the life of me see why we are now creating a legal distinction in May 1973 which did not exist in British law in January 1972. This is why I see in the Bill an element of retrospection which, both as a lawyer and, I hope, as an ordinary layman, I do not like. Retrospective legislation is anathema to lawyers. Occasionally one has to have such legislation, but the grounds on which it is sought by a Government are usually inadequate and must be proved up to the hilt. The Government have not advanced any case for saying that if a person arrives on 29th January he is to be allowed in and to remain in, and register but that if on the other hand a person arrives on 31st January he will not be entitled to the benefits of registration which the Act confers on the pre-30th January 1972 entrants. The way in which the situation could be cured is obviously by altering the qualifying date of registration for Pakistani citizens who are in this country and to make the date, not 30th January


1972, but the date of presentation of the Bill—namely, 14th May 1973.
Secondly, I am worried about the provisions in relation to Kashmiri citizens, particularly citizens or nationals of Azad Kashmir. I wish to draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to a Question which was asked in the other place on 17th February 1972. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, speaking on behalf of the Government, was asked the following Question by the noble Lady, Baroness Summerskill:
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if there were a change in the position of Pakistanis in this country, he can tell me how many doctors would be affected?
Lord Windlesham chose not to confine his answer to doctors but said:
My Lords, we need to be clear about this.
I think that is an injunction of which we in this House as well as those in another place can echo. Lord Windlesham went on:
Even if citizens of Pakistan were to be treated as foreign nationals after legislative changes had been made, the continued stay of those who had been admitted for settlement would not be endangered in any way at all.
I shall read those words again because, as I read them, they contain a clear, unmistakable and unequivocal pledge which covers those who were admitted in the period between 30th January 1972 and 14th May 1973. I read the words again because they are an ex cathedra statement by a Government Minister speaking in another place—and more ex cathedra than that it is difficult to imagine. The noble Lord said:
My Lords, we need to be clear about this. Even if citizens of Pakistan were to be treated as foreign nationals after legislative changes had been made
I pause there. They have not yet been treated as foreign nationals because the legislative changes have not yet been made but are proposed to be made in the Bill. He continued,
the continued stay of those who had been admitted for settlement"—
that is, prior to the legislative changes having been made—
would not be endangered in any way at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 17th February 1972; Vol. 328 c. 309.]
Since that was the pledge given in another place on 17th February 1972, I

do not see how it is possible to argue that we should remove from the people who came in between January 1972 and May 1973 the right to apply for registration under the Act and therefore to treat them as aliens and to deny them the very option which we are giving to the pre-30th January 1972 entrants. How is it possible to say that that would not be endangering "the continued stay of those admitted for settlement?". Clearly it would endanger their stay. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department shakes his head, but he cannot be applying his mind to the problem. These provisions are now converting an individual with an option to become a British citizen in the full sense of the word into an individual who is denied that option and who under British law will become an alien. It is impossible to argue that that is not endangering his continued stay in the United Kingdom. Once he becomes an alien, all his rights to stay in the United Kingdom are radically altered. I hope that the Government will look at this specific pledge given in another place on 17th February 1972 because I do not see how it is possible honestly and honourably—one may be able to devise weasel words to do so, but I do not think that is what the Government want to do in this matter—to defend a situation in which that pledge can be given in February 1972 and then enact this Bill so that its provisions will then retrospectively deprive people of a right which they otherwise would have had.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I should like to make the situation clear to avoid further misunderstanding. We can discuss this matter later, but I must point out that the rights of the people mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman—those who are securely settled here because they were admitted here—are not affected by the Bill.

Mr. Richard: Then why is it thought necessary to legislate for all those who were in the same position prior to 30th January 1972 so as to give them the option of registration to become British citizens? The Minister cannot say that their position would not be altered without the option merely because they have been admitted here and are stable here. If what the hon. Gentleman says is right,


then why is it necessary to legislate to give the pre-January 1972 people a right of registration which, according to him, the post-January 1972 people do not need.

Mr. Lane: The hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the rights of registration with security of settlement. He was implying that the rights of secure settlement in this country were being endangered. I am saying, on the point with which my noble Friend was dealing in the other place, that that is not the intention in this Bill. I hope that we can make the situation thoroughly clear later in debate.

Mr. Richard: I still do not follow what the hon. Gentleman says. With great respect, I think that he is seeking to devise a form of weasel words. He is now saying that the clear pledge given by Lord Windlesham in another place had nothing to do with the status or position of Pakistanis in this country. He is saying that all that statement was designed to do was to deal with their security of tenure in the United Kingdom. If he is saying that that was the intention behind that Answer given on 17th February 1972, I merely invite him to look again at the Question and Answer to which I have referred:
…may I ask the noble Lord whether, if there were a change in the position of Pakistanis in this country.…
That is what he was asked, and his answer was,
Even if citizens of Pakistan were to be treated as foreign nationals after legislative changes had been made, the continued stay of those who had been admitted for settlement would not be endangered in any way at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 17 February 1972; Vol. 328, c. 309.]
I come back to the point, I do not see how it is possible to argue that the continued stay of an individual in this country is not endangered if one insists thereafter in treating him as an alien and denying him the option of becoming a British subject. I would have thought that it was plain beyond peradventure that if he were treated in that way, in the second case one is clearly "endangering" his continued stay in this country. I am not saying that it is being denied, I am saying that it is being endangered. The word used was

"endangering", not that it was being wholly taken away.
I hope that the Government will look at that specific pledge. Repetition by me will not make the point any better although it may emphasise it a little more, but I do not see how it is now possible to reconcile that pledge with the provisions in the Bill.
May I turn to the second point where I have some reservations about this Bill, and that is the way in which the citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are being treated. If one goes back to the history of Kashmir—I should hesitate to do so, firstly because I do not think it will assist the House in considering this Bill, and secondly because it is precisely the confusion about Kashmir and the fact that Kashmir is still a disputed territory that has given rise to the legal and other difficulties with which we are now faced in this Bill—one finds that the Azad Kashmiri citizens were British subjects by birth before 1947, and after independence in 1947 their status was subject to determination by the United Nations under various United Nations resolutions. Those citizens were given protection by the Government of Pakistan. They were issued with Pakistani passports, apart from affording them other facilities at diplomatic and political levels. I accept, however, that their precise status was left technically undetermined because of the confusion about the status of Jammu and Kashmir.
However, in the Indian Constitution people living in that part of Kashmir occupied by India have always enjoyed the status of citizens of India.
The result was that the people of Azad Kashmir who came to this country on Pakistani passports were designated as being citizens of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. The British Government always appreciated this situation and treated those nationals of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir as citizens of Pakistan for all intents and purposes, except for the purposes of registration.
I today saw some of the representatives of the Azad Kashmir Welfare Association in Birmingham, one of whom has been in this country since 1952. He is on the voting register, as I understand it, has voted and has participated to the


full in municipal activities in the city where he lives, and I think may even at one time have been a local councillor. If the Government are now right, all this he has done illegally, and unlawfully, and therefore presumably he is open to be punished for it.
On 7th February 1972 that welfare association wrote to the Home Office. They marked it, somewhat optimistically, for the personal attention of the right hon. Reginald Maudling. They asked the Home Office this point:
We shall be grateful to your honours if you could kindly pay your personal attention to our case and confirm to us for the information of our members that withdrawal of Pakistan from British Commonwealth would not affect our rights and that Her Majesty's Government would continue to treat Azad Kashmir Nationals as Commonwealth Citizens as long as the status of the former States of Jammu and Kashmir is not finally settled.
They received a reply, dated 12th April 1972, from a Mr. Parkinson of the Home Office, who apologised for not sending them an earlier reply to their letter of 7th February addressed to the Home Secretary. There then follows what is, I am bound to say, even in this branch of the law, which is, to say the least, obscure, one of the most obscurantist and difficult letters to understand that even legally I have read for many years. It says this:
The position as regards the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by natives of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir who are at present residing in the United Kingdom, is as follows: In general, a person can possess the status of Commonwealth citizen for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1948 only if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a citizen of one of the other independent Commonwealth countries, or a British subject without citizenship.
Later he goes on to say:
It is clear that persons born in Jammu and and Kashmir who are neither citizens of Pakistan nor citizens of India do not fall within any of these categories (they are not British subjects without citizenship because the territory of Jammu and Kashmir did not form part of British India immediately before the 1948 Act came into force).
I am not sure why that is so, but apparently that is what one hears from the authority of Mr. Parkinson in Tolworth Tower.
They are therefore aliens in United Kingdom nationality law and are not eligible for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948; but as aliens they can apply for naturalization.

That apparently is one way out: they can always apply to be naturalised. If the Government go on their present course they will have 20,000–30,000 applications by Azad Kashmiris who have lived in this country for a considerable period of time for naturalisation. The Under-Secretary nods his head in approval. If he thinks that is a sensible way of dealing with the problem, I do not agree.
He goes on to say:
For the purposes of the Commonwealth Immigrant Acts, however, people from Jammu and Kashmir who hold passports issued by the Government of Pakistan describing their status as 'Native of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir' are treated as though they were British Protected Persons (which was their status in our law up until 1949).
That is a most interesting admission by the Home Office. May I read the sentence again to the House:
For the purposes of the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, however, people from Jammu and Kashmir who hold passports issued by the Government of Pakistan describing their status as 'Native of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir' are treated as though they were British Protected Persons (which was their status in our law up until 1949).
Therefore, it follows that up until 1949 they were not aliens and are exempt from the Aliens Act provisions and regulations.
Then it goes on to say this:
The effect of this is that, while they do not have the civic privileges or obligations of Commonwealth citizens"—
I do not know what that means—
and can acquire British nationality only by naturalisation, they are for immigration purposes treated as if they were Commonwealth citizens.
The Treasury bench shakes its head. This is Gilbertian. It would take the pen of W. S. Gilbert and the musical genius of Sir Arthur Sullivan to produce a more delicately ridiculous situation.
If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are supposed to have been wielding their new brooms with this branch of the law, as they are supposed to have been doing, since 1970, they have produced a hotchpotch, a mess which I describe as Gilbertian and idiotic.
We are told in relation to these citizens that at one time they were British protected people, but have ceased to be so; secondly, that they have been treated as if they were Commonwealth citizens for immigration purposes. Therefore an


individual will have been admitted to this country as if he were a citizen of Pakistan as opposed to being merely an individual who is not a citizen of Pakistan but happens to hold a Pakistan passport which is stamped "Born in Jammu and Kashmir". When he gets to this country he has for all practical purposes, and in reality, been treated in exactly the same way as any other Commonwealth citizen. He has not had any additional obligations of reporting imposed upon him. He has had no additional obligations of registration imposed upon him. He has had no obligations under the Aliens Act imposed on him. A great number of these people have been in the country for a long time, and the Government now turn round and say that because of this gap in the law —which as I see it, has arisen merely because of the fact that in international law the State of Kashmir and Jammu is still a disputed territory—they are aliens. With respect to the Government, I think they ought to think about this one again.
The answer to it is, as I have said, relatively simple. The basic principle which I make in relation to the Bill and which I have no doubt we will discuss in Committee at length is that for the purpose of giving rights of registration to existing Pakistanis—and I include among them citizens of Jammu and Kashmir holding Pakistani passports who have been treated by the British Government and by British law as if they were Commonwealth citizens and who were British protected persons until 1949 when that status was removed from them, and I include Pakistanis settled in this country since 30th January 1972—the date on which the Bill should become effective should be the date on which the Bill was presented, namely 14th May 1973, and not the date on which Pakistan left the Commonwealth, namely 30th January 1972.
There are other provisions in the Bill which I do not like. I do not approve of the six months provision for registration. I do not see why Pakistanis should be given six months to register when, under the South Africa Act, South African citizens were given, I believe, two years in which to elect to register and a further lengthy period in which to take up the election if they so wished.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is important not to let this go by without correcting the error which my hon. and learned Friend inadvertently has committed. It was three years and seven months from the enactment of the South Africa Act. It was four years and seven months from the date that South Africa left the Commonwealth.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged to my hon. Frienud. He has done his homework better than I have.
If it is right in relation to the South Africa Act that a white South African citizen who had been admitted to the United Kingdom was given up to eight years in which to take up an election to become a British subject, but that a coloured Pakistani citizen who has been admitted to this country under precisely the same legislation is to be given only six months, that is a result which with the best will in the world is unfair, unjust and discriminatory, and the Government should take it away and look at it again.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is not the main question? The question is that South Africa was asked to leave the Commonwealth as a consequence of her internal policies whereas Pakistan as an independent Government voluntarily opted to secede from it.

Mr. Richard: That is a distinction, but it does not invalidate my point. My point is a simple one—that when Britain faced a similar situation in relation to the status of white South Africans, Her Majesty's Government took one course and gave them up to eight years for the purpose of final registration. When we face the same problem in relation to coloured Pakistanis who are now living in this country, apparently that time is to be whittled down to six months. That is not right. It is unfair. I hope that the Government will look at it again.
Despite all that I have said, however, I do not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the Second Reading of this Bill. The principles behind it seem to be inevitable concomitants of the fact that, regrettably, Pakistan has opted to leave the Commonwealth. However, I am concerned to point out that there are aspects of the Bill which in the view of the Opposition


—and, I think, of a large number of people outside this House, not necessarily confined to one political party—are basically unfair, unjust, ought to be amended, and can be presented as discriminatory.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had little difficulty in establishing that this is not the sort of Bill which it would have been wise or indeed possible to bring in at short notice. Therefore it is all the more unfortunate that in this case we have not followed the one existing precedent for a country leaving the Commonwealth, namely, the case of South Africa in 1961.
Most right hon. and hon. Members will know that when that event took place in 1961 this House froze the situation as it then was for 12 months by the Temporary Provisions Act of 1961 until the final legislation regularising the consequences of South Africa's departure could be passed a year later.
The fact that we have not proceeded in that way but have left the matter at large for 15 months has had the result that during those 15 months we have been living not on one but on two fictions, which is a state of affairs that is extremely undesirable in citizenship law. The Home Office has relied upon the contention that in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 the word "Pakistan", the name of the country concerned in this case, means whatever it wants it to mean at the time. It has contended that until this moment "Pakistan" in Section 1(3) of that Act has not meant what anyone else calls Pakistan but has meant what was Pakistan, and the peoples and territories included in what was Pakistan, in 1956, when Pakistan became a republic, and in 1948, the date of the British Nationality Act. This is a fiction which conflicts not only with common sense but with the course of our legislation hitherto.
Right hon. and hon. Members who follow these matters will be aware that whenever a Commonwealth country has ceased to be a monarchy and has become a republic it has been held to be necessary, in order to maintain its status within

the Commonwealth and the status of its citizens as British subjects under our law, for a consequential provisions Bill to be passed and that, if that Bill had not been passed at the time, its citizens would have ceased to be British subjects.
As recently as July of last year on the occasion of the passing of the Sri Lanka Republic Bill, the spokesman for the Foreign Office confirmed that the Bill was necessary not merely because of the change of name of Ceylon into Sri Lanka but also because of the change of status from a monarchy to a republic, and that Section 1 (3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 was one of the provisions of our law for the sake of which the Bill of the last Session was necessary.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the basis upon which he says that these consequential provisions Acts which are used when a Commonwealth country ceases to be a dominion in our law and becomes a republic are necessary to effect the citizenship rights of the people in question? That view has never been advanced in the past.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Gentleman looks up the debate of last July, he will find that that section was specifically mentioned amongst the enactments for the sake of which the consequential legislation was necessary.

Mr. Cunningham: Because of the change of name.

Mr. Powell: No. Because of the change of status. That is the reason why at every stage, as in the case of Pakistan in 1956, when monarchy has been replaced by republican status, it has been necessary to affirm that, although the country listed in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act is now not what it was at the time of the 1948 Act but is a republic, nevertheless it shall be treated as if that change had not taken place.
The Foreign Office has never been in any doubt or dispute over this matter. That was illustrated when, following Pakistan's departure from the Commonwealth, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services informed me in a letter of 11th April this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth


Office advised the Department of Health and Social Security
that when Pakistan left the Commonwealth, the effect of that departure was that the 1892 Order"—
that is an order which, by dint of subsequent amendments, specified by name "India" and "Pakistan"—
ceased to apply to Pakistan.
In other words, Pakistan, a republic in the Commonwealth, to which it had hitherto applied, was not the same as Pakistan, a country no longer part of the Commonwealth.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in the debate on the Immigration Rules on 22nd November last year, took precisely this point. I will trouble the House with a couple of sentences. At c. 1452 I asked him:
Is my right hon. Friend confirming that there will be a difference of treatment between Pakistanis in this country according to whether they entered before or after the date of independence?
That is exactly the matter with which the Bill is dealing.
My right hon. Friend replied:
I confirm that. There may have to be a provisional period "—

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): When my right hon. Friend said "date of independence", what date did he mean?

Mr. Powell: The same as the date in the Bill—30th January 1972.

Mr. Wilkinson: Perhaps I may help my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not mean independence 1947. He meant the date of secession from the Commonwealth. He made a slip of the tongue on that occasion which I well remember.

Mr. Powell: I understand that. Indeed, I was taking my right hon. Friend's word "independence" in the sense of secession. Of course, Pakistan has been independent since 1947. The correct term would be "secession" and the date, therefore, would be 30th January 1972, as it stands in the Bill. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) for making that clear.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, if I may revert, replied:
There may have to be a provisonal period, but they will have to change their status".
—that is, in order to retain their privileges in this country those who came before secession will have to change their status—
because they are now foreigners. This is a fact of life".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1452.]
Clearly in that context my right hon. Friend was not referring to a fact of international law. He was referring to the natural effect of a country leaving the Commonwealth upon the law of this country. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to assert that whereas, whenever a country remaining in the Commonwealth ceases to be a monarchy and becomes a republic, it is necessary to specify that it is still the same country as that which we have been so naming all along, yet when that country is torn in two and, moreover, leaves the Commonwealth, it is still, for purposes of United Kingdom law, the same country as it was in 1948 and 1956. That is the one fiction under which we have been living for the last 15 months.

Mr. Richard: If that is right, why was it necessary to legislate in the case of South Africa on this precise point?

Mr. Powell: In the case of South Africa we legislated immediately, as I reminded the House—indeed, we legislated before South Africa actually left the Commonwealth—in order to hold the position until the Bill corresponding to this one was brought in.

Mr. Richard: With respect, I understand that the short Bill was a temporary holding Bill. Nevertheless, it was still necessary to legislate when South Africa left the Commonwealth. That is the whole point.

Mr. Powell: I am not disagreeing with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He seems to think that I am arguing that this Bill is unnecessary. I am not arguing that at all. I am merely arguing that we have involved ourselves in difficulties because we did not follow the precedent of 1961 and 1962 and precede this Bill by a temporary provisions Bill taking effect as soon as possible after Pakistan left the Commonwealth


and freezing the position for the intervening period.

Mr. Richard: I am not making myself clear. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be arguing that, because Pakistan left the Commonwealth, it ceased to have the meaning that was ascribed to it in the 1948 Act. I am merely asking: if that is so, why was it necessary to legislate on that specific point when South Africa left the Commonwealth? If it did not need the legislation, why did we legislate?

Mr. Powell: It was necessary to legislate to prevent all the consequences of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth from taking effect immediately. It was to provide the time during which the final legislation which corresponds to this Bill—

Mr. Richard: Which the right hon. Gentleman says is unnecessary.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman really must listen. I have at no stage argued, nor am I seeking to argue, that this Bill is unnecessary. Of course, it is necessary. Of course, a final Act to tidy up the consequences of Pakistan leaving the Commonwealth is necessary. I am saying that we should preferably have had a holding Bill at first to freeze the position as it was before Pakistan left the Commonwealth, as we did in the case of South Africa. So, as a result, we have had to live under the fiction of pretending that Pakistan, as it has been since 30th January, is, according to the law of this country, the Pakistan mentioned in the 1948 Act as amended in 1956.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: I am willing to give way, but I have made my point and am fearful of wearying the House by continuing to repeat it.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman will recall this point because he was a member of the Cabinet at the time. Will he tell the House why it was not until the 1962 South African Bill that the removal of the reference to South Africa in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 took place? Why was it not done in the first Act? Why was it left until the second Act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) replies, I should tell the House that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. Therefore, I should appreciate it if interjections were rationed rather strictly.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have allowed myself to be tempted too far.
The whole purpose of the temporary provisions Act was to make legislation unnecessary until final legislation corresponding to this Bill could be considered and brought in. Therefore, it was not necessary in 1961 to have the provisions which were in due course to be made in 1962.
That, then, is the one fiction under which we have been living, regarding Pakistan. But we have been living under an even more grotesque fiction in regard to Bangladesh. From 4th February 1972, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State informed me in a Written Answer on 11th December last, we have recognised Bangladesh as an independent country. It has not regarded its citizens as citizens of Pakistan—that is the last thing they have thought they were. Certainly Pakistan has not regarded the citizens of an independent Bangladesh as its citizens. Nevertheless, throughout this period we have continued the pretence that the Bangladeshis are all still citizens of Pakistan and that, therefore, the 1948 Act, as amended, applies to them.
This Bill will at last terminate this twofold process of illusion with which we have lived for the last 15 months. However, I want to put to my right hon. Friends the suggestion that we should regularise the position beyond all possible doubt by including in the Bill a provision which explicitly legalises anything which has been done in the last 15 months under the cover of the two fictions that I have mentioned. Whatever view any hon. Member takes, it is clearly undesirable that there should be any doubt—and doubt there is—about the legality of certain actions done, either by Pakistanis or otherwise, during the last 15 months. If we are now legislating finally, we should clear out of the way any question whatsover about the situation during the last 15 months. This could be done, I


imagine, by a relatively simple provision; and whatever view individuals may take, I should have thought there could be no possible disadvantage in that being considered.
I turn now to the effects of this Bill for the future and particularly to the major effect—namely, the manner in which those who would otherwise be aliens are to acquire, or to have the opportunity to acquire, the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The purely transitional provisions are in themselves clearly necessary. It would clearly be wrong that persons occupying offices should find their right to occupy them suddenly brought to a termination. But the substantial question that we have to consider concerns the terms on which access to citizenship of the United Kingdom is provided by the Bill to those who would otherwise remain or become aliens as a result of the Bill.
There are now three separate codes under which the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is attained. The first is, since the Immigration Act of 1971, available only to those who are patrial and, transitionally to a certain defined class of Commonwealth citizens. That is the old, unlimited, automatic right of a Commonweath citizen to be registered upon application after five years residence.
Parliament in 1971 decided that that right should, apart from transitional provisions, be limited to those who are patrial, and it substituted, as the principal code for Commonwealth citizens, the new procedures which is to be found in, I think, the First Schedule to the 1971 Act, which makes it a discretionary act of the Secretary of State to register the applicant and requires him to be satisfied, among other matters, of the good character of the applicant and of his sufficient knowledge of the English language. It was the opinion on both sides of the House—I believe there was no division of opinion about this—that it was time for access to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies no longer to be automatic but to be subject to certain reasonable safeguards and requirements, and to be in that sense discretionary.
The third code, of course, which has been referred to several times already,

is the aliens code, the process of naturalisation.
If I have understood the Bill correctly, it provides the automatic right of registration under the first of those three codes for all those Pakistanis to whom it will be available at all. The question which I wish to raise with my right hon. Friends and to put to the House is whether this is right, whether it accords with the circumstances of the case and with the intentions of Parliament in passing the 1971 Act.
It appears to me that, given the nature of this immigration, the large numbers involved and the fact that it took place in the manner that it did and in the volume that it did simply because of the privileges of membership of the Commonwealth, it would be appropriate that access to United Kingdom citizenship should be provided under either the second or the third of the codes—that is to say, that it should be not automatic but discretionary.
Since Pakistan has, of her own volition, left the Commonwealth, with the consequences for her own citizens which naturally follow in all parts of the world, I must place it on record that it appears to me right that the process of naturalisation should be the one that is applicable for those who have the appropriate residential status in this country to obtain, if they wish it, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
That leaves me finally, if I might include it for convenience in this debate, with the case of Bangladesh. This is the first instance, I think, in which a country, having been independent and outside the Commonwealth by virtue of secession from a country which had already left the Commonwealth, has been admitted, as it were, newly to the Commonwealth.
I am far from suggesting that, in the ambit of this Bill, we can or should, having accepted Bangladesh, treat her citizens differently from those of any other Commonwealth country. Nevertheless, the question which constantly rises in urgency is once more pointed up by the case of Bangladesh. That is, how much longer can we continue to base the main privileges of citizenship in this country not upon our own citizenship, a citizenship of the United Kingdom, but upon


the character of Commonwealth citizen or British subject?
Sooner or later, we shall have to unify all the aspects of citizenship—franchise, office and the rest—and make them no longer the consequences of a larger and more comprehensive category, which means different things in different parts of the Commonwealth and nowhere means so much as it means in the United Kingdom, but attach them instead to the status of United Kingdom citizens.
We cannot move to that in the context of the operation which is taking place; but the very fact of Bangladeshis being admitted, with all the consequences attached, to the status of Commonwealth citizens is another reminder of the urgency for this country at long last to provide itself with a proper, logical and complete law of citizenship.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: It is impossible for us to give a Second Reading to either this or the Bangladesh Bill—each of which regularises the position, as far as United Kingdom law is concerned, of Pakistan outside the Commonwealth and Bangladesh inside—without reminding ourselves how all this came about and without looking to the future.
The birth of a new nation is always a mighty thing and it is something that seldom comes about without a good deal of suffering. So it was in the case of Bangladesh. Those who may be tempted to think that India and Bangladesh are being unreasonable at present over the question of the prisoners of war and the war crimes trials should cast their minds back to the events of 1971 and should also remember our own attitude to this kind of question after the 1939–45 war.
The sad fact is that Pakistan is now outside the Commonwealth because, in 1971, she launched against East Bengal the greatest wave of racial violence that the world has seen in recent years. The present regime, of course, was not responsible for that. It is to be hoped that under President Bhutto Pakistan will live peaceably with her neighbours in the Indian sub-continent and even that, one day, Pakistan, perhaps under President Bhutto, will be led back into the Commonwealth.
I am not sure that I can agree with the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that these Bills should wait until we see whether that is likely to happen. We cannot do that, because there is no possibility of its happening for some years. But I hope that it will happen before many years go by.
Despite what some hon. Members may feel, we must concern ourselves with the present circumstances which follow from the exit of Pakistan from the Commonwealth and the entry of Bangladesh. The joint declaration issued by India and Bangladesh on 17th April was a very moderate response to the difficult situation that exists at present. The most important thing concerning those negotiations is that the prisoners of war now held in India should be returned to their families at the earliest possible opportunity but we should also remember the Bangalese who are in Pakistan and who wish to return to Bangladesh, and those Biharis in Bangladesh who have opted for repatriation to Pakistan. There is a three-way problem of considerable dimensions.
The Governments of India and Bangladesh could not have been more conciliatory over this matter than they have been, in leaving aside for the moment the recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan and in proposing talks in which, in the first instance, Bangladesh would not take part directly. Pakistan's response has been to institute proceedings at the International Court of Justice to prevent India's extraditing prisoners of war and civilian prisoners to Bangladesh for trial. I do not wish to dwell upon the events of 1971, but they were of such enormity that it is too much for Pakistan to expect to be allowed to put offenders on trial herself.

Mr. Edward Taylor: This is not in the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: These matters are very much in our minds at present, following the exit of Pakistan from the Commonwealth and the entry of Bangladesh.
I used to be rather despondent about the future of the Commonwealth and its value in the modern world, but the example of Bangladesh has made me much more optimistic about the Commonwealth. It is a thoroughly good thing that


a country whose foreign policy is based on non-alignment and who numbers Russia among her two main allies should set such store, as Bangladesh has done, on Commonwealth membership and friendship with Britain.
The birth of Bangladesh is an inspiration to people all over the world who still live under repressive régimes. The significance of the two Bills we are debating tonight goes far wider than the tidy changes that we are making in our law.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Much as I admire the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), I feel that his speech constituted a blatantly biased assertion of the events which took place in Pakistan. There are strong views about this matter on both sides of the House. Perhaps some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and some of my hon. Friends are biased. But in a very complex situation it does not help to put forward what seemed to be just an apology for that country—which I hope will do well in the future—in a situation in which the least that can be said is that there was fault on both sides. It is impossible to paint one side all white and one side all black, from a moral point of view.
There are five points about the Bill that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), in a masterly speech, put a very fine point, that is, that there has been delay in introducing the Bill. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this is the appropriate time, bearing in mind that there has been a very long delay.
In his opening words my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that Pakistan had withdrawn from the Commonwealth and that President Bhutto at the time had said that the withdrawal was final and irrevocable. If my right hon. Friend were to inquire about the present situation, or the situation after the secret talks which are taking place about the future of the prisoners of war, he would find, perhaps, that the answer given by representatives of the Government of Pakistan would be considerably different. At the time of the statement,

they were outraged, rightly or wrongly, by the recognition of Bangladesh. They were outraged, rightly or wrongly, about the situation of the prisoners of war. They were outraged, rightly or wrongly, about what appeared to be a flouting of a United Nations resolution. The statement which Mr. Bhutto made at the time, that the withdrawal was final and irrevocable, was made at a time of stress. I suggest that it is probably not the kind of balanced judgment that would be made today.
Bearing in mind that we have delayed a long time in bringing forward this Bill, perhaps it would have been preferable to wait until such time as there appeared to be a clarity about the future of the prisoners of war, on which discussions appear to be taking place secretly. India has made a gesture which many of us appreciate a great deal. India has moved to a certain extent. It is hoped that the Pakistanis will move a little, so that the prisoners of war can be released and all the problems of the detainees in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh can be resolved.
If there ever were an appropriate time not to bring in a Bill, it is when we have had the first sign of movement, perhaps, on the part of one of the major contenders in this matter. To that extent it might have been helpful to wait for even two or three months, by which time it will be quite clear whether there is progress on the prisoners of war and detainees or whether this will be a very long haul.
The second point that concerns me is the question of the date, the date fixed being the date when Pakistan withdrew from the Commonwealth and not the date of introduction of the Bill. I should have had no objection to the provision of two standards for those who came into Britain before the end of January and those who came in after the end of January if that had been made clear at the time. If at the end of January 1972 there had been a statement or a temporary provisions Bill, or even a White Paper—although we do not like legislation by White Paper—or if there had been even a sign above the door at London Airport under which people walked saying that all those who entered after 31st January should be fully aware of the consequences and that their position was totally different from that


of those who had come in previously, we would not have objected to the Bill and an element of retrospection.
But we know that those who came in after that date, despite our stringent regulations, were certainly not aware that they would be treated differently. Certainly they might not have judged that the withdrawal of Pakistan from the Commonwealth created a different international situation. Unless one was a Pakistani who was also a reader of The Times, The Guardian, The Observer and various magazines, and a reader of HANSARD every day, on entering this country from Pakistan after 31st January one would not be fully aware that one would be treated differently. The average Pakistani would not know that.
I am not aware that even my home-born Scottish citizens in Cathcart read HANSARD every day; far less do those who have entered this country from Pakistan over the last 18 months. So far as I am aware, there is no northern edition of HANSARD.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a brilliant speech, as always. In these circumstances the sensible thing to do, irrespective of what we think about this situation, is to forget what has happened over the last 18 months, because no indication was given at the time. If the meat of the Bill goes through the Committee stage, I hope that we shall not have a separate situation for those who entered the country before the end of January and those who entered it afterwards. If we are to make a distinction, let it be from the day we published our intention and when we introduced the Bill.
That will make a difference to these people, bat the position of the Kashmiris creates a different situation.
Rightly or wrongly, we have allowed many people to enter this country from Pakistan. Conflicting views have been expressed on previous occasions, but it would be an intolerable situation if people who entered this country more than 20 years ago, who have played a full part in our community life, should suddenly be told that legally they are in the position of being aliens because of the special situation of Kashmir and that they must apply for naturalisation.
Until the time when their application succeeded, or in the event of its not succeeding, such people would have to start calling regularly at police stations.
That kind of situation could create a feeling of insecurity throughout the Pakistani community which would not be good for race relations. My right hon. Friend knows that I feel that there has been too much immigration into this country. It is a fact of life that a substantial number of immigrants are living in Great Britain. However, anything which we do to undermine their feeling of security, particularly of those resident in Britain for 15 or 20 years, will make race relations more difficult.
My fourth point is that if we are to have a six-month transitional period during which those who are in a difficult position will have to apply to become United Kingdom citizens, are we sure that appropriate advice during that period will be available? The experience of Pakistanis living in this country of dealing with the British Government is not good.
Many of them are trying to get their wives over from Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is always sympathetic in such cases, knows what happens. Often their wives in Pakistan ask for an interview. They are told that they can get an interview in about six months. They are told to bring certain papers and in some cases, which I have brought to the attention of my hon. Friend and of which he is fully aware, they are told, "We need more papers. We need your husband's tax returns for the past three years." They have to supply that information. They have to write to Britain and the documents have to be sent back. There may or may not be a sound basis for that long delay. We probably know the reasons, but whether they are justified is another matter.
It must be appreciated that many Pakistanis face an acute problem in getting their wives to this country. They must wait for six months for an interview. They are then asked for old papers and they have to send air letters backwards and forwards to Pakistan. That is not the kind of thing which gives them the greatest confidence in British administration.
Are we sure that during the six months there will be sufficient advice available to them to tell them what to do and what their rights are? The kind of situation could develop when people who want to stir up trouble could cause an awful lot of trouble. If we are to have a six-month period instead of four-year or eight-year period which we have had in another instance, we must ensure that in centres of the population where many Pakistanis live there are provided advice centres, which will be opened smartly, to which people can go with all their problems and troubles. At those centres they can be told what their rights are and what they must do. There should be people available to help them fill up the appropriate forms. It is my experience, when dealing with the procedure of rents and rebates, that many people do not know how to fill tin a form containing 30 questions. I suggest that nationality is probably a much more complex matter.
If we are to have a period of only six months, the Government must ensure that all those who are entitled to take advantage of the provisions that apply with citizenship will have the opportunity of having somewhere to go and somebody to speak to about what they should do. If such facilities are not provided, the vacuum may well be filled by people who might want to cause trouble.
Fifthly, what is the position of those who have applied for their wives to enter this country? If, in the case of those from Kashmir, they cease to become what are regarded as Pakistan citizens for the purpose of the Commonwealth Immigration Act, what is the position of their wives? What is the position of those who entered the country before 30th January and what is the position afterwards?
This is obviously a Bill which will need a great deal of discussion in Committee. I hope that it will be remembered that the Bill will affect directly or indirectly a substantial number of people who are Pakistan residents in this country. It is desperately important that it should be remembered that the only reports which will appear about our deliberations will be some complex reports in the heavy papers tomorrow. Many people who are Pakistan citizens of this country will

know that something is going on and they will feel insecure and uncertain. Therefore, I hope that every effort will be made, whether the Bill becomes law in this form or whether it is greatly improved in Committee, as I hope it will be, to ensure that the Government on this occasion, if on no other, will explain to people what is happening and how it affects them. I hope that we shall explain what they should do to protect their own interests.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). It is an unusual experience for me to find that I am able to agree with practically every word that he said. The only disadvantage of that is that almost everything I intended to say has already been said by him.
The hon. Gentleman and I took different views about the situation in Bangladesh and Pakistan two years ago. I was active on behalf of those in what was then East Pakistan and the hon. Gentleman tended to see matters rather more clearly from the standpoint of West Pakistan. It is encouraging that today we find ourselves on exactly the same side. Therefore, I can keep my speech very short.
First, I associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about the timing of the Bill. It is regrettable that we have the Bill at this time. One of the only two points made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with which I agree is that it is perhaps a pity that we did not have a temporary provisions Act which would have enabled us to defer considering this measure at this stage. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, it is regrettable because negotiations are going on which I trust will lead to the resolution of the problem of the sub-continent, and will enable prisoners of war in India to return to Pakistan, the Baharis who have elected to do so to go to Pakistan, and the Bengalis in Pakistan to return to Bangladesh. There are signs and sparks of hope in relation to the situation in Kashmir.
In all those situations the fact that Pakistan has somewhat tenuous associations as a former member of the


Commonwealth and that we do not yet have legislation to put into effect the changes resulting from her leaving the Commonwealth make it easier for benevolent help in the negotiations to be exercised. I fear that the implementation of this measure will make it less likely that when these immediate problems have been resolved, as I sincerely trust they will be, Pakistan will come back into the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the statements of President Bhutto at the time of his declaration—and we must remember the circumstances of that declaration—there would be greater opportunity for second thoughts if this Bill did not become law.
However, if we are to legislate, the manner in which we do so must be considered. We must remember that the majority of the people whom we are now considering were brought here by British industrialists. Those industrialists sent out teams to recruit people in Pakistan for their benefit and for the benefit of British industry. For the most part it was not a case of people packing their bags and deciding that they wanted to emigrate to England, but of their being brought here because at that time British industry thought that it needed them. Views may well have changed since that time. I very much doubt whether it is desirable for a rich country to seek to resolve its labour problems by recruiting from another country, or for a poor country to alleviate its social problems by relying on remittances from those who have been recruited. Whatever view we take about what happened at the time, these people came to this country, and they came here mostly recruited by British employers. They came with the assurance and in the belief that they would be able to settle here and remain here permanently. That is an assurance we shall not go back on. With respect to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am surprised that he should take such a low view of the sovereignty of this House—a change by another country of its boundaries, its foreign policy or its laws should not by itself change the status conferred upon people by British law.
What has happened is that by the Immigration Act and by this measure people who have lived here for many years, believing that they had a right to remain

here, are being deprived of that right. I believe that the Foreign Secretary said that between 20,000 and 30,000 Kashmiris are affected—people who believed that they had the right to register as British citizens and who are to have that right removed. The remainder of the Pakistani citizens have had a time limitation imposed upon them of six months. The Foreign Secretary said that he wished to be fair and humane, but I cannot believe that the House will accept that such a time limitation can possibly be regarded as fair and humane.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Surely the hon. Member realises that they have had five years to think about this.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Until this measure came before us they had thought that under the Immigration Act they could register after the five years' period was complete. The Bill will give them six months from the date on which they complete their five-year qualification.
The second point on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is that we should have followed the South Africa Act. In that Act the period laid down was from 30th May 1962 until the end of 1965—over 3½ years. Another significant difference in that Act was that under the provisions of the First Schedule application could be made by a person who was not at the time of the passing of the Act ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. He could make application if at any time during the period until the end of 1965 he became ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Under the Bill we are proposing to operate retrospectively to 30th January 1972, to deprive people of the right to apply for registration even though they may have left Pakistan months before—for example, if they were travelling here by sea—and may not have arrived in Britain until 31st January. They would have set off with the expectation that they would arrive here as members of a Commonwealth country, with rights of which this Bill will retrospectively deprive them.
Whatever view may be taken by some hon. Members about the desirability or undesirability of immigration, that is no longer the issue. A substantial number of citizens of this country—people who


are citizens whether they have citizenship rights under the law as it is now or as we are proposing to make it—are citizens of this country and have their roots, their homes and their children here. By changing the law in the way proposed, particularly in the restricting niggling way proposed by the Bill, we shall exclude a substantial number of people whose roots are here. A substantial number of people will fail to register in time. There are great delays in the administrations, as I was told at Question Time the other day. It takes almost six months to get an appointment with the consul in Islamabad.
Given these administrative delays it is inevitable that a substantial number of people who would qualify as entitled to register will have to go through the procedure of discretionary registration under paragraph (2) of Appendix A to Schedule 1 of the Immigration Act 1971. From the experience we have had of the Home Office in recent months over registration and the enforcement of a very arguable interpretation the Immigration Act rules against people who have been living here for many years believing they were here legally, it is not encouraging for people to know that they are dependent on the exercise of the discretion of the Home Office. It is inevitable, therefore, both that people will be left out and that many more will be made to feel that they are only grudgingly accepted.
I urge the Government, when considering the Bill in Committee, to accept amendments which will enable the principles that the Foreign Secretary enunciated in presenting the Bill—principles of fairness and humanity—to be given effect. That certainly cannot be done with the Bill as it stands.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In many respects this is an unhappy occasion. It is unhappy because it brings to our attention the fatuous anomalies of our laws of citizenship and nationality. It is unhappy because of the strong ties which have united what is now Pakistan and the United Kingdom in peace and in war. Of all the countries in the Commonwealth, Pakistan was the only one to see fit to ally itself explicity with the United Kingdom and is still in

an alliance agreement with Great Britain Hon Members will also recall that in 1942 when the Japanese were at the gates of India is was the Muslims of the sub-Continent who stayed loyal to the British Crown. It is therefore a supremely sad occasion.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reminded us, President Bhutto has declared that Pakistan's secession from the Commonwealth is final and irrevocable. It is not appropriate for any of us in this House from our position here to conjecture as to the motives or the future courses of action of the Government of Pakistan. That is entirely for the Government of Pakistan to decide and I take President Bhutto's words at their face value. Indeed, in many ways I welcome them. They bring home to us the realities of our post-Imperial situation which we are reluctant to face, especially in regard to citizenship and nationality in the United Kingdom.
The concept of Commonwealth is in many ways out of date and in the Second Reading debate on the British Nationality Act which is very relevant to this legislation, the Lord Chancellor said in the House of Lords:
Indeed, even St. Athanasius himself would have found this subject one which called for all his skill. But, though it is difficult to expound and explain, I believe it to be a noble institution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords,, 11th May, 1948; Vol. 155, c. 754.]
He went on to suggest that the concept of nationality was founded on a sense of unity with a sense of individual freedom. That concept of individual freedom has not found magnficent exposition in many countries which continue to be part of the Commonwealth of nations. We have seen that most recently in Uganda and yet Uganda's status within the Commonwealth is not questioned. Ugandan citizens, if they reside here, presumably have the full rights of British subjects. Pakistanis who have been resident much longer in certain circumstances, particularly if they come from Mirpur, which is Bradford's twin town in Azad Kashmir, will not continue to enjoy these rights even though the overseas Pakistanis can in no way be held responsible for the actions of the Government of Pakistan back in Rawalpindi. It is ridiculous to suppose that they can because obviously they are incapable of exercising a


franchise in Pakistan or influencing decisions of the Government back home.
In the debate on the British Nationality Act in this House Sir David Maxwell Fyfe foresaw many of the anomalies of our situation today. He quoted an article from The Times which said:
The local citizenship, being in law the primary nationality, will everywhere become the real determinant of practical status, and … the derivative British subjecthood, on which in the last resort the unity of the Commonwealth rests, will gradually lapse into an ornamental embellishment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July 1948; Vol. 454, c. 75–6.]
I believe that quotation was exceptionally prophetic.
Then, if we look at the conclusion of his speech, we see three very interesting strands of argument. The first is that he hypothesises about what would occur upon the secession of a member from the Commonwealth. Then he goes on to describe the various types of special ad hoc legislation that would have to make appropriate its status in that case. Then he goes on to hypothesise about republican status to which quite rightly my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. J. Enoch Powell) referred, because that is very germane to this whole question. Lastly, at the conclusion of his speech, he said:
… we are at the moment—again as a matter irrespective of party—looking for closer unity among the nations of Western Europe. That has to be squared with our Commonwealth responsibility and Commonwealth relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July 1948; Vol. 454, c. 79.]
I do not believe that so far as questions of immigration, citizenship and nationality are concerned we have faced even these consequences—the consequences of our membership of the EEC—fairly and squarely.
Lastly, if I may finish my period of quotation, the leading spokesman for the Opposition, at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate said:
but let no one imagine that this Bill does not mark an end of the chapter and a leap in the dark as far as concerns one of the most important of the links of sentiment which has bound us to our Dominions overseas." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July 1948; Vol. 453, c. 494.]
That might have been true of the British Nationality Act, 1948, but I do not believe it is quite true of this legislation

today. This does, however, whether we like it or not, mark the end of an epoch.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in answer to a question from myself not so very long ago, said that this Government were reviewing the whole question of citizenship and nationality in this country. I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the Front Bench that now we must waste no time in reviewing this whole matter. So many people who have to legislate in this field do not come from cities where there are multi-cultural and multi-racial communities. They can have no comprehension of the situation as it exists on the ground.
Turning to the much-referred-to subsection of the British Nationality Act—Section 1(3)—I see in the list that there are in fact three down and six to go—three down, that is, if we include, with South Africa and Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia. I do not believe that we can imagine that it will necessarily be so very long before we have to make further legislative provision.
Hon. Members have referred to the case of South Africa, and quite rightly so, but in many respects the more appropriate analogy would be the Republic of Southern Ireland because the Republic of Southern Ireland first acquired republican status, like Pakistan, and then seceded from the Commonwealth of nations by its own choice. If we were to pursue the analogy of the Republic of Ireland it would not be so unreasonable because, unlike the case of South Africa, there are many Southern Irish living in big cities, just as Pakistanis do. In my city of Bradford some 30,000 Pakistanis reside.
If we take the Southern Irish, in Section 2 of the British Nationality Act there is provision which effectively gives them a special categorisation which affords them the privileges of British subjecthood. We are all aware that in many instances the residence of Southern Irishmen is more temporary than is that of Pakistanis in big cities. I have not been in Bradford so long, but I have been there five years and, as I say, we have a very sizeable concentration of Pakistanis. Yet I have only met two who would willingly be repatriated, as the popular phrase goes, to their own country. In other words, they see their position in the United Kingdom as being a continuing one in the economic


sense. They have their obligations to their families, perhaps back in Pakistan. This is the reality of the situation. So they are here and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) reminded us, we should not lose sight of that fact.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs went on to say that we should do our best to ensure that our relations with Pakistan remained close. He said that those relations would be different in that they were no longer members of the Commonwealth. I hope they will be different in the sense that there will be a much more natural relationship, between equals. If we get away from the notion of Commonwealth nostalgia, these are the sorts of relationships—relationships of mutual respect and understanding for respective points of view, respect for different interests—which we want to engender with the emerging countries whether they still form a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations or not.
So I would remind my right hon. Friend that this Bill has fairly significant implications for Anglo-Pakistan relations —as the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court so rightly told us—because of the element of retrospection that is engraved into this Bill. I do not believe that retrospection is ever a good legislative concept, and certainly not in this situation because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West told us, the very fact that no special provisions were introduced led Pakistanis —and Bangalees for that matter—to presume that their status and rights would continue to be unchanged: in other words, that they would continue as per the British Nationality Act.
So I would say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they must look again at this matter not only because of the precedent of South Africa but more particularly because of the question of the Azad Kashmiris. This is especially important for Bradford. As I have said, in many instances Mirpur can be regarded as our twin city in the subcontinent. We had in 1966 a very relevant case concerning Bradford parliamentary representation. It went to an inquiry and at that inquiry the Labour

Party wanted to reduce our representation from four to three. We, as Conservatives, fought it on the basis of the fact that many of the Commonwealth citizens would not be on the electoral register because they could not speak the language and could not fill in the forms and would therefore have a lower take-up of registration. The inquiry was before Mr. Justice Curtis Bennett and on the first day of the proceedings we had evidence from the Chief Electoral Registration Assistant of Bradford Corporation, Mr. Jack Dickinson. In his evidence he said that he had been in the Department doing the work for no less than 15 years, and that he was in no sense inexpert. He was then asked a specific question about the take-up of registration among immigrants. The transcript continues:
Q. In Bradford you have a much more comprehensive door-to-door visitation? A. Yes.
Q. In doing that you must knock on Indian and Pakistani doors? A. Yes.
Q. What happens when you knock on those doors? A. Very often information cannot be obtained.
Q. Why is that? A. Because nobody speaks English. We have some little leaflets printed in Urdu and those are left with the forms. In a number of cases the forms come back filled in. In other cases they do not.
Q. When they don't, do you go to them again? A. They get a second form, sent after the qualifying day and another little leaflet. We do not make a second visit.
Q. At any rate initially you have this personal contact, which gives you higher returns? A. Yes.
There was no further cross-examination on that point.
That evidence illustrates what I have clearly said, that to try to enforce the provision will be virtually impossible without demanding papers of some kind, whether passports or whatever. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court showed his ignorance with his references to Khans and Singhs; he showed that he did not even know the difference between a Sikh and a Pathan or a Punjabi—a West Punjabi at any rate. Most English people cannot tell the difference between a Bengali and a Gujurati name. Therefore, the provision would be extremely hard to enforce, more particularly on the Azard Kashmiris. This is particularly germane.
The lecturer in politics at Bradford University, a Labour councillor, a certain Mr. Lelohe, was cross-examined by counsel. It was suggested that a large number of the Asians would be Miapolis. Mr. Lelohe referred to an article by Mr. Norman Bishop, an Urdu-speaking ex-Gurkha officer in the city who has worked as a solicitor among the immigrants for many years. Mr. Bishop said that about 60 per cent. of the Pakistanis in Bradford were Azad Kashmiris. Mr. Lelohe backed up that statement, and I have no reason to doubt those figures. I believe that there are about 30,000 Pakistanis in Bradford, and therefore about 18,000 would be Azad Kashmiris. That is the dimension of the situation.
A principle that the House has always embraced is that of "no taxation without representation". Immigrants, be they Mirpuris, Gujuratis, Bengalis or whatever, pay rates and taxes. If we are to ensure good community relations in our cities, we cannot have a substantial minority of the population—in some wards it could be almost a majority—who have no say in the election of their local or parliamentary representatives. It would be extremely dangerous.
I believe that community relations in our cities will be the most important domestic issue for the country over the next generation. It will be very dangerous and extremely unwise if, because retrospection is left in the Bill, those rights are denied to such a large proportion of our population.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Then will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he voted for the Immigration Act, which included in one of its Schedules the provision that any Asian had to satisfy the Home Secretary of his knowledge of English before he could vote? By voting for that provision, the hon. Gentleman has ensured that nearly every Pakistani arriving in this country after 1966 will not be accepted even if he applies for registration.

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. The Immigration Act had no language qualifications for voting. [Interruption.] Language qualification for voting does not come into that measure. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Mr. Lyons: Withdraw.

Mr. Wilkinson: I will not withdraw.
I will now proceed to the question of Bangladesh, because it is germane, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has pointed out.
There are a large number of Bangladeshis in this country who would not wish to be anything other than Pakistan citizens. Bangladesh arose as the result of an Indian invasion following a civil war. I do not know how many Bangladeshis, but certainly it was a large number of them resident in this country, did not wish for the secession of their country from the unitary state of Pakistan. Therefore, to acquire British citizenship by registration some of them would have to go through the very painful and obnoxious process of acquiring Bangladesh nationality. That would be quite unacceptable to a significant number of them. I ask my hon. Friend to bear this very much in mind. To conclude, it is in many ways a sorry piece of legislation, but I feel it has immense lessons for us in the whole problem of citizenship and nationality.
I bring one final example to the attention of the House. I said that Bradford, like many big cities, is a multi-cultural, multi-racial place. In my city we have many thousands of Ukranians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Hungarians and others who came to this country for political reasons after World War II to escape from Communism and totalitarianism in their own countries. Like many other residents in Bradford, they choose to keep their own nationality, or at least the notion of it—perhaps like Commonwealth citizens—in the hope of returning there on some future occasion.
Yet, because we do not have citizenship of the United Kingdom or British nationality—call it what one will—based upon residence in Britain for a determined period of time, these people who, like Commonwealth citizens, pay rates and taxes, are denied the vote and all the rights of British citizens. There is the total illogicality, for example, that an Indian from an East Punjabi village can come in without any knowledge of the British language or customs and can vote, take part in various civil processes and can have civic rights whereas a Pole who may


have been here for a generation, possibly with a perfect command of English and suchlike, has no such rights. This is another very good example of why all our citizenship and nationality laws are cockeyed.
We must take this excellent opportunity of doing something about the matter most urgently. Ordinary English people living in an ordinary English street—or what was perhaps an ordinary English street—in an area of high immigrant concentration cannot tell the the difference between a West Pakistani, a Ugandan Asian, a Bangalees, or a Gujurati: they are all the same to them. Yet, because of some notional concept based on imperial nostalgia, we give rights to one category which in this Bill we seek to deny to another.
Although I must support the Bill because I have to make what sense I can of existing law, I hope that we shall not neglect this opportunity to put things right.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: For me, as for others in the House, this is a melancholy day, but it is an inevitable day. The Bill has been inevitable ever since Pakistan took the decision to leave the Commonwealth after the tragic civil war which tore her in two.
In bidding farewell to Pakistan as a member of the Commonwealth, temporarily though we hope that will be, it is right in a debate of this kind that we should pause to pay tribute to a country with which we have been associated for years and with which we have been Commonwealth partners for a quarter of a century. It is a country whose history is in large part our history, too, and with whom we shall continue, even though she remains outside the Commonwealth, to have close ties. These include such special ties as those contained in Clause 2 maintaining Pakistan as part of the Commonwealth Preference area and as a country in which we shall continue to have a special and friendly interest.
Whatever views hon. Members took about the civil war, I think in debating the Bill we would all agree that we look forward to the healing of the scars

caused by that civil war. For Pakistan, the scar which still causes most pain is the continued absence from the families of that country after 18 months of imprisonment of more than 90,000 of their loved ones. We very much hope that the United Kingdom, even though Pakistan has ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth, will continue to exercise all possible influence to secure the release of these prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention and the relevant United Nations resolution.
Our other principal task is to provide for those Pakistani nationals who live in this country, to provide for those who wish to obtain United Kingdom citizenship and to secure a transition as trouble-free as possible. On this, I hope that the Government will exercise a humane and compassionate flexibility as the Bill goes through the House, remembering that up to 80,000 human beings are involved. I trust that in Committee the Government will show themselves open-minded in view of some undoubted anomalies in the Bill.
First—and I hope that this will be explained because it was not explained as distinct from stated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary—we want to know more about the period of transition during which registration for citizenship will be permitted. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was against any period of transition in which registration was permitted, but he was a member of the Cabinet in 1962 when the South Africa Act was passed and when precisely the same transitional facilities, although not the same period of transition, were permitted. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, who prides himself on consistency, is himself being inconsistent in having shared collective Cabinet responsibility for the South Africa Act in 1962 while rejecting it in 1973.
I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that the six months dispensation in the Bill must be compared with the three years seven months dispensation in the South Africa Act, on which this Bill is largely based. When I say that the Bill is largely based on the South Africa Act, I draw attention to Clause 3(1) and (2), which are identical with Section 1(3) and (4) of the South Africa Act. It is clear that


the parliamentary draftsmen drew extremely heavily for this Bill on the Act.
I had such a Bill as this very much in mind on 31st January 1972, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary answered a Private Notice Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. I asked,
Does the Foreign Secretary recall the legislation passed in 1961 and 1962—the Prime Minister certainly will, since he personally was involved in it—regularising the situation regarding the work and citizenship of South Africans in this country when the Union of South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth? Will he undertake to look at that legislation, as there is a parallel situation here, to see whether similar legislation can be introduced to protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who have made their homes in this country and do not wish to be regarded as foreigners here?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1972; Vol. 830. c. 31.]
I was wrong, of course, about the number involved. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to reply, "Yes, Sir." Of course, I did not then and do not now pretend to take this as a specific commitment that identical legislation to the South Africa Act would be introduced, but I certainly hoped for similar legislation. But this Bill indisputably is not similar as regards the period during which registration will be permitted.
When the South Africa Bill was being considered in Standing Committee on 8th March 1962, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who was then Minister of State, Home Office, was pressed by the Opposition to extend the period during which South African citizens could register for United Kingdom citizenship indefinitely. From his own side of the Committee he was pressed by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) to extend it by two years, that is from the end of 1965 to the end of 1967. That would have made it five years and seven months from the passing of the Act and six years and seven months from the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman declined to accept either of these proposals saying that the three year, seven month period of grace as he described

it—and the Foreign Secretary today referred to the six-month period as a grace period—represented
what we consider to be a reasonable compromise between the interests of the individuals concerned and the logical consequence of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th March 1962; col. 56.]
The South Africa Bill was presented by the then Lord Privy Seal, now the Prime Minister. If in that Bill three years and seven months was regarded as a reasonable compromise for South Africans, why is six months now regarded as an acceptable period for Pakistanis? Even taking into account the period between the two countries leaving the Commonwealth and the presentation of the respective Bills, the South Africans had more than four and a half years compared with less than two years for the Pakistanis. On the basis of the South African Bill, which was regarded as "a reasonable compromise", the Pakistanis, if given the same reasonable compromise, would have until the end of August 1976 instead of the end of this year to register.
I am not suggesting this but what I am suggesting is that there should be a limited extension beyond the six-month period. I suggest this for a number of specific reasons. If the Government consider them dispassionately and flexibly, they will see the rationale. When South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth there were few South Africans in this country eligible to register. With Pakistan, on the estimate given by the Foreign Secretary today, there are likely to be 50,000 people to register. That was the estimate in the notice kindly sent to me by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department when the Bill was published last week.
If we think only of the six-month period and if there are more than 50,000 people wishing to register for citizenship, then registrations are likely to flow in at the rate of more than 2,000 a week. It would be impossible for the Home Office machinery to cope with such a rate of applications within a reasonable time. Applications coming in at that rate will inevitably take a considerable time to process.
There is a second reason. It may well be that in considering the Bill the anomaly which I am about to mention


has not been taken into account by the Government. It is a serious one. Clause 3(3) shows that the Government are concerned for Pakistanis to be registered as electors as well as citizens. They are right to have this concern since the exercise of the franchise is the supreme function of citizenship. Yet this Bill, unwittingly I am sure, but inevitably, may disfranchise thousands of United Kingdom citizens for a year. That is surely not the best introduction to citizenship.
Clause 3(3) allows Pakistanis to vote during the period of validity of the present electoral register and no further. The assumption, presumably, is that those who take citizenship will require qualification on the next register, that is the one which will come into force next February, with no interregnum. I put this to the Minister from the Home Office because it is his responsibility and something which I debated with him before he became a member of the Front Bench. The register is compiled in October. The register for the corning year on which Pakistanis will not attain citizenship and will not have the right to register, will he compiled this October, but the period for registration for citizenship under the Bill will have a duration six months beyond the commencement of the Act.
Presumably the Act will commence some time in June or July and the six-months' period would expire some time in December or January. Therefore people will have the right to register for citizenship up to December or January but will get on the electoral register only if they have registered by October. This means that those who, perfectly legally and within the Government's intention and period of grace, register within the last two or three months of the transitional period, will be excluded from the register. Many who register in the first four months—up to October—may also be excluded if the registration process is prolonged by the volume of applications which, according to the Government's figures, may be up to 500 a day on average.
In that case all those concerned will be penalised by being awarded citizenship but by losing the franchise from February 1974 to February 1975, a period

which could quite likely include the next General Election. They will be citizens but they will be deprived of the vote. I trust that the Minister will look at my suggestion carefully. I do not ask him to give an answer this evening, but I hope that he will consider it when we debate this matter in Committee. I suggest that the Bill should be amended in two ways to obviate what I am sure he will agree are disturbing anomalies.
First, in Clause 3(3) the period of what one might call the voting concession should be extended by a year, that is, not up to February 1974, but to 16th February 1975. This would enfranchise far fewer who do not intend to take citizenship than would be disfranchised under the proposed arrangements, especially bearing in mind the minority who do not intend to take citizenship. They are highly unlikely to want to vote.
In Clause 3(1), Schedule 2(2) and Schedule 3(1) and (3) I suggest that the transitional period should be extended from six months to one year or two years, whichever the Government regard as more acceptable. This would give those involved a little more time for the important decision they have to make. From the Minister's point of view I think he would agree that it would not overload the Home Office machinery so heavily as it is likely to be overloaded with 400 or 500 applications pouring in every day once the Bill becomes law as the Government now anticipate.
I hope that the Government will consider amendments on their merits remembering that when the South Africa Bill went through the House they considered amendments on their merits, and indeed made amendments. I hope that in Committee they will find my proposals acceptable both in the interests of the Pakistanis and in the interests of the Government's own machinery.
Whatever their decision—and I hope that their decision will be on the lines I have suggested—I ask the Minister in his reply to give us some information about what publicity arrangements will be made to let the Pakistanis know through their newspapers, through their special television programmes, and in other ways their rights to acquire citizenship under the Bill.
I have advised many Pakistani constituents about this matter ever since Pakistan withdrew from the Commonwealth, and I appreciate that the Bill inevitably involves a difficult and painful transition. It is obviously in the interests of all—the host community as well as those who have come here from Pakistan—that the transition should be as smooth and as trouble free as possible. We all look forward to a settled future for those who wish to assume the full rights and duties of British citizenship. We also wish god-speed to Pakistan as an independent republic making its own way in the world.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I shall not follow the line of argument pursued by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) except to say that I very much agree with his points and hope that the Government will find it possible to make the amendments to the Bill which he suggested. I, too, regret the necessity for this legislation, but equally I accept the reasons why it is being introduced. I do not quarrel with the spirit of the Bill but I question some of its details, and I regard those details as extremely important.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), I do not have 30,000 immigrants in my constituency, but I have a considerable number, including 4,000 Kashmiris, as I found out over the weekend.
It was ridiculous for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to suggest in broadcasts over the weekend that the people of Kashmir have in some way been treated differently from the citizens of Pakistan. Although that may be the law of the country, it is not the way the law has been interpreted. I can give him concrete examples of Kashmiri citizens who have applied to the Home Office in the last three months for naturalisation and have been told that they are being treated for this purpose as if they were citizens of Pakistan. I can also quote Kashmiris in my constituency who have stood for election in the local authority in the last two years. Indeed, one stood for election within the last two months. The Kashmiris in my local authority have been registered for voting purposes.
Although it has been suggested that all this is illegal, the fact is that it has gone on. Kashmiris in this country have been paid social security and have benefited under the National Health Service provisions. The fact is that, whatever the law says, it has not been carried out in relation to those Kashmiris and at this stage of the proceedings it is ridiculous to talk in terms of differentiating between them. That is the key to the feelings of discontent that have been voiced. There are other areas of discontent to which I shall refer a little later in my remarks.
Certainly the major item of discontent is the date on which a person has to be a member of the Pakistan community. A person who was a citizen of the State of Kashmir as and from 23rd February 1973 is now included by Pakistan for full Pakistani citizenship. By making the date on which a man must prove his citizenship 30th January 1972 we have excluded from the provisions of the Bill all the Kashmiris who are now resident in this country. Those people all become aliens. It is perfectly true that they can apply for registration, but whereas, under the Bill, citizens of Pakistan can have registration as of right as aliens, Kashmiris have registration only at the discretion of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Member is being very interesting and extremely informative, but does he not agree that in many cities the Azad Kashmiris were the first to come from Pakistan, and the people from the Punjab and other areas of Kashmir came later? The Azad Kashmiris have been here longest.

Mr. Smith: I concede that. Some of them have been here over 20 years and have sons and daughters at school who have never known any other school or any other country. It is really quite inhuman for the Government to differentiate or discriminate in this way, as appears to be the situation.
I press the Minister to tell us specifically in his concluding speech why the Government chose to make this aspect retrospective. Many of the problems raised by the Bill could be removed if only the Government would agree that recognition of citizenship of Pakistan should be as and from when the Bill


receives the Royal Assent or approval from this House rather than from the date on which Pakistan seceded from the Commonwealth. I cannot understand why the Bill should be retrospective. I understand that it is not in common with normal practice, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
I interrupted the Foreign Secretary to ask what would happen if Pakistan were to pass retrospective legislation. I can assure the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that that is not beyond the bounds of possibiliy. I assure him that I choose my words carefully. Let us suppose that Pakistan passed a Bill which provided that the people of Kashmir were citizens of Pakistan as and from 31st December 1971 instead of 23rd February 1973, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility. What effect would that have? Would the Government of this country refer it to the International Court? Would they argue that the Government of Pakistan had no right to pass retrospective legislation of this kind? What would be the effect on the citizens of Kashmir if Pakistan were to indulge in an act of retrospective legislation, as indeed this Government are doing under the Act now before us?
I am bound to say that in my view the Bill is lacking in a spirit of charity. I very much hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government are not inflexible on these matters, and that in Committee they will seriously consider the possibility of introducing amendments to take account of the strong views expressed in this House this evening. Unless I see some indication in the Minister's reply that the Government are prepared to consider the points that have been made and to adopt a more flexible attitude, whatever the official Opposition do I may find it necessary to divide the House on behalf of the Liberal Party.
The next major point has already been referred to by a number of hon. Members. It concerns the period of six months which is to be allowed for registration. I suggest that such a period is not only monstrous but costly. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, on the most conservative estimate the number of applications likely to be received is about 2,000 a week. The Bill refers to a figure

of more than £600,000 as the cost of dealing with this legislation. I remind hon. Members that this is taking place in a week in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced proposals to reduce public expenditure. I suggest that an easy way of taking £500,000 out of public expenditure would be to spread the time over a longer period than six months.
The key issue, however—[Interruption.] I am not sure how many different meetings I am addressing at the moment. When an hon. Member who represents a constituency which has large numbers of immigrants is addressing the House it helps to be able to feel that right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench are listening—

Lord Balniel: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Smith: There was a considerable amount of cross-talk going on round the right hon. Gentleman.
Whatever the justification for the six-months' period, the fact remains that in terms of good race relations this is about the most dangerous piece of legislation that could be introduced. It is dangerous because, whether it be right or wrong, human or inhuman, moral or immoral, it is inevitable that comparisons will be drawn between what the Government did for the white subjects of South Africa and what they are now doing for the black citizens of Pakistan. Charges of racial discrimination can be levelled, albeit possibly unfairly, at a situation in which South African citizens were allowed the minimum of three and half years in which to apply whereas Pakistanis are being allowed only six months.
I do not argue for three and a half years in the present case, but there is a vast difference between six months and three and a half years. I want to know why that difference has been made. Why did the Government give a longer period to the citizens of South Africa to apply for registration than they propose for the citizens of Pakistan? What is the difference, and why is it made?
When the South Africa Bill was introduced, one famous Member of this House, who was then Lord Privy Seal said:
We have had many detailed discussions about citizenship and its different aspects. It is a very technical and complicated matter,


and on this, too, we had to strike a balance. Some would have liked the provisions to go on for much longer, while others thought that they should have ended sooner. The Government had to strike a balance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March 1962; Vol. 656, c. 1690]
Today that gentleman is the Prime Minister.
I ask the Government to indicate that in Committee they were prepared, to use their Leader's words, to "strike a balance". The balance that has been struck in the Bill, as drawn, is very heavily tilted—almost by a weight of my magnitudeon one side of the scale. I accept that that may be striking a balance, but by no stretch of the imagination is it striking a fair balance.
In 1962 the Government presumably knew what they were doing when they allowed people three and a half years. Do they know what they are doing now? Whether they like it or not, that comparison will be and has already been drawn, and it cannot be expressed as being unfairly drawn when it is drawn
My third point is that there should be some safeguard for people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom who are temporarily abroad on long holidays. For example, hon. Members on both sides of the House who have immigrants in their constituencies understand that it is not unusual, particularly at this time of the year, for a person to go abroad for two or three months, because he may go only once in four or five years. I ask that in those cases, where it can be proved that a person is and has been normally resident in this country, the six months' period should be extended. If, as a matter of principle, the period in the Bill were extended beyond six months, those persons would automatically be covered.
My fourth point, which I have mentioned many times in Questions in this House, relates to full registration for doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons. I have on more than one occasion put down Questions on this matter. Temporary registration for doctors prevents their practising as general practitioners in private practice, and often prevents promotion in the hospital service. I ask that full registration should be allowed for those professions up to the date of implementation of the legislation. After all, whatever one's

view on immigration or immigrants, few people in this country, however "coloured" their views on immigration may be, would not accept that we are right to welcome into this country people who can help to fill a void of professionalism that is naturally and normally present. That is the position relating to Pakistani doctors.
My fifth point concerns people who are awaiting visas in Pakistan. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned this point. The Minister is aware of my deep concern about the scandalous delay that takes place in this area. The hon. Gentleman, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, has agreed and admitted in Written Answers to me in the last three months that delays in the appeals section can take as long as 18 months. Again, the hon. Member for Bradford, West gave some illustrations. I could quote 30 cases of people in this situation. They may travel as much as 500 miles to present documentary evidence, only to be told when they get there that they are missing one piece of paper. They are then sent back the 500 miles to get that piece of paper. They are put back at the end of the queue, and the whole procedure takes months. Indeed, in my short time in this House I have applied to Mr. Speaker's office on at least one occasion for a debate on the Adjournment on this issue. It is scandalous that human beings, whatever the colour of their skin, should be dealt with in this inhuman fashion and that it should take up to three years before they get a final answer to their applications. I say "three years", bearing in mind a delay in the initial application and then a long delay in hearing the appeal. It is quite inhuman.
The Home Office can determine whether bona fide applications were made before the date of implementation of the Bill. I ask them seriously to consider the possibility of introducing in Committee some provision that, where the British Government are satisfied that an application for entry was registered before the introduction—not the passing—of the measure, and where it is subsequently held to be a valid application, those concerned shall be treated as though they had entered the country at the time that the Act was introduced.
My sixth point—

Lord Balniel: The hon. Member has made some critical remarks about the time taken to process applications. I understand that the period is lengthy, but, in fairness, he will appreciate that the staff overseas have a substantial and difficult job in checking the papers which are put before them and the information given to them. Just for his information—I am speaking off the cuff—I think that we have 46 staff in Islamabad alone dealing with these applications. That shows the tremendous effort that this country is putting into ensuring that applications are dealt with as promptly as possible. But the problem is very difficult for our staff.

Mr. Smith: I am indebted to the Minister for his intervention. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken as a reflection on the efficiency of the staff themselves, but I suspect that the length of delay shows that even 46 are not enough to deal with the problem. If that number is sufficient, and if the delay is due to having to get replies to letters and having to make searches, and so on, it means that the staff are under-employed for part of their time. I would not accept that, so presumably the delay is due to a shortage of staff, even with 46.
What I have said, I stand by. It is scandalous that people can wait for as long as three years before getting a final word. I am not now arguing for more immigrants to be allowed or refused entry to this country, but I am arguing that once an application has been made an applicant is entitled to a straight answer —"Yes" or "No"—within a reasonable period, and certainly within a much more resonable period than two or three years.
Sixthly, I ask the Minister to give some indication—I am sure that this will present no problem to him—that the businesses and properties of people in this country who, as a consequence of the Bill, become aliens, will be properly safeguarded by the Government and their agencies. People who have been here for two years and who therefore need to stay another two years before being able to apply for registration, even under the Act, will for three years be aliens. There is some worry about their businesses and properties during the period that they are

aliens waiting for full registration and I am sure that the Minister will be able to assure them on that point.
Seventhly, what is the position of dependants who come to this country to join the main breadwinner, having proved that they are his dependants—wife or children? Is it not possible, under the Bill, to say to those people, "When it is proved that you came here as dependants of a main breadwinner and in no other capacity, when the main breadwinner is granted registration, despite the period after his arrival that you arrived, we will grant you the same rights and privileges"? This is very important from my point of view, not only as a Liberal Member—the only one called in the debate but as a Member with many constituents involved in the question. Half the immigrants in my constituency are citizens of Kashmir.
To summarise, I hope, first, that the Government will agree that Pakistani citizenship and the recognition of it can be operative from the date of Royal Assent to the Bill, rather than retrospectively. Secondly, I hope that the six-months' period can be extended to a longer period, as was done in the case of South Africa. Thirdly, I hope that we can have safeguards for people ordinarily resident here but temporarily abroad. Fourthly, I hope that full registration will be granted for doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons. Fifthly, I hope that those awaiting visas for this country who had applied for them before the introduction of the Bill will be specially catered for. Sixthly, I hope that there will be undertakings about safeguards for aliens and properties and businesses. Finally, I hope that the position of dependants, particularly wives and children of main breadwinners, will in some way be taken care of in the Bill.
As the Bill stands, it is unfair. It is not entirely charitable in its attitude. Certainly the six-months' period is far too short for people to have the right of registration. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply to the debate. Unless I am satisfied that flexibility will be shown by the Government at a later stage in our proceedings—I am not asking for specific promises about this or that matter—unless the Government show that they will not be too rigid, but will listen to the arguments and be


willing to make amendments, I shall certainly consider dividing the House tonight.

9.22 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I readily apologise for being a latecomer to the debate, although hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede that my interest in Pakistan affairs is not exactly a new one. I shall nevertheless take great care, within the limits of my powers, to make sure that I do not stand in the way of any other hon. Member who wishes to contribute to the debate.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) made a speech on seven points which was rather like the dance of the seven veils, but the latter veils were not as attractive as the first veils. He rather over-stated his case. Although I thought that he was completely convincing on the question of the Kashmiri, he was less convincing about his complaints about the time it takes for people to be processed in Rawalpindi and Islamabad at present. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for State said in his intervention, at present a very loyal and devoted staff are doing their very best to try to get this processing done as rapidly as possible. But it is not as easy as saying that instead of a staff of 46 we should have 56, because in Pakistan, as in many developing countries, the records of births and marriages, and so on, are not as easily available as they are in a country that is as highly developed as Britain. That is a fact of life. Even if the hon. Gentleman were there, his presence would not speed up the process very much because of the sheer lack of documentation in these cases.
I make no apology for the fact that I am not speaking of a constituency problem because there are only a very limited number of Pakistanis living in Torbay. But it would be a great pity if our interest in one of our largest and greatest Commonwealth neighbours were limited only to those who were speaking with a constituency interest. We ought to look at this picture in a wider context than has, perhaps, been dealt with in the debate. We ought to recall the fact that after very traumatic experiences—and wherever lies the blame for those experiences, it certainly does not apply and cannot be attributed to the people about whom we

are talking, or to the ordinary rank and file Pakistani at home—at present Pakistan is feeling, understandably, very sore. Emotions are, therefore, at a near fever pitch. Everyone is in a very sensitive state in that part of southern Asia at present.
I suggest therefore to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should not ignore the fact that we are not dealing here with purely and strictly legal and factual matters. We must take into account that we are also seeing the rebirth of a country which has suffered a great deal, whether due to the faults of its leaders or not, during the past two years and which is now trying to build itself into a new nation. We are also witnessing at long last the emergence of a parliamentary democracy in Pakistan. It will not be easy for President Bhutto, or Prime Minister Bhutto as he will be shortly, to hold together a new parliamentary democracy in a part of the world where there is little experience of that form of Government, if, at the same time, he is not able to deliver the goods. What may appear to us to be comparatively small matters may be magnified in that country to a high emotional pitch.
I ask my right hon. Friends in particular to realise that having gone so far in encouraging the establishment of a Pakistan democracy, we must now nurture it to the maximum and not put additional obstacles in the way of the confidence which the present leadership of Pakistan can obtain from its own people.
Rightly or wrongly there is and has been a feeling in Pakistan that Britain has not been as friendly to Pakistan as it has been to India. It is not my job or my purpose to say whether that feeling is justified. Anyone who goes to Pakistan knows full well that that feeling exists at every level. Therefore, we have an additional responsibility not to lend any credence to a belief which, whether anybody here believes it is justified or not, is a belief which exists throughout the length and breadth of Pakistan. That must be known to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
I now address myself to the position of those people from Azad Kashmir. I recall the awful mess which the Government found themselves in recently when


they narrowly escaped a serious reverse on another immigration issue. If their attitude persists, Her Majesty's Government might face another reverse on an even narrower point in the near future.
What are we really talking about? I understand that there are about 50,000 people from Kashmir who are affected at present. I am also told that about 20,000 of those people have already applied for citizenship under the normal rules and have either been granted citizenship or are in the process of being granted citizenship. We are talking about 20,000 or 30,000 people. We know perfectly well that under no circumstances can they be compelled to leave these islands. Indeed, there is no suggestion that they should be. The Minister has made that clear. They will stay here. There are large numbers of them and inevitably, because of their age group, many have children who were born British and who will anyhow remain British.
What is the argument about? We are saying that we shall refuse to grant certain rights to 20,000 or 30,000 people even though their children are inalienable British subjects. Yet we have not the slightest intention of interfering with the jobs and the lives of these 20,000 or 30,000 people. We are talking about an area of extreme sensitivity. I cannot comprehend why under those circumstances Her Majesty's Government do not make a simple concession and say that they will reconsider the matter. What do they expect to lose? As I have already emphasised, there is nothing to be gained. The only thing which we will do is to make the Pakistan Government and the people of Pakistan feel even more sensitive than at present. We shall not solve the immigration problem in this way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) might advance the argument, if it were relevant, that by this measure, if we can remove British nationality from 20,000 or 30,000 people, we shall in some way affect the number of immigrants in this country from the coloured part of the Commonwealth. But we shall not; because it has already been made perfectly clear that these people will stay here anyway. If we were saying that this was a contribution towards lessening the

excessive Commonwealth immigration undertaken since the last war, I might go along with it. I could at least understand it. But we are not arguing about that, because, whatever decision is taken tonight, in Committee or on Third Reading, we have already had a specific undertaking that those 20,000 or 30,000 will stay here with the same rights as they enjoy today. I therefore do not understand what all the fuss is about, and I hope that the Government will think again now rather than being forced to think again later.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I find myself in the strange position tonight of agreeing with several Conservative Members, not least the Monday Club Member, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I find myself in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) and of course in substantial agreement with my hon. Friends. No doubt at this late stage of the debate most of the people present will agree that most of the vital points have been covered, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) for his knowledge of the situation in Pakistan. He came into the debate fleetingly at the last moment yet made a significant contribution, and he may be gratified by the fact that I thoroughly agree with all he said.
The Bill is not absolutely necessary and it will probably complicate the situation in Pakistan. As the Foreign Secretary said, it is a Bill of many complexities. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) spoke a great deal about fiction. But the fact is that the Bill will create a great deal of unnecessary hardship for the Pakistanis in my part of the world, and that no doubt applies to the rest of the country. It will cause a great deal of confusion for people who do not readily understand our language and, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) said about his constituency, many of these people find it most difficult to understand the English language at all.
All of us except for the lawyers will agree that the Bill will be a lawyer's paradise because in arguing a case for


registration and in dealing with the provisions relating to different groups, especially the groups from Kashmir, many people will have to resort to the legal process. A period of six months for registration is grossly inadequate, especially in view of the suggested figure of 60,000. If they are all to be registered in six months, the administrative burden on the Home Office will be excessive, particularly when we hear of the normal case of an immigrant taking two to three months to be answered. I accept the point by the Minister who said, I think, that there were 50 officials is Islamabad. He said that there was great difficulty over identification because of the lack of registration of births, deaths or marriages in that part of the world.
Nevertheless, the Bill could well have been put off for a considerable period in view of the negotiations now going oil between India and Pakistan about the prisoners of war, and on that point I agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart. The hon. Member for Rochdale suggested a period of two years. When one remembers that the South Africans were given three years and seven months it shows how grossly unfair is the six-month period given to the Pakistanis. That period will be seen by the many Pakistanis in this country as unfair. There is another important point concerning those Pakistanis who are either local government councillors or candidates or, as in the case of a friend of mine, a parliamentary candidate. There is another significant and important point that in Scotland we shall be choosing candidates very shortly for the new authorities in local government. I am referring to the new regional and district candidates who are to be chosen in the autumn.
One of the factors that determines the choice is that they are on a particular electoral register. If this Bil does not become law until June or July and these people for some reason or other do not register early enough within that six-month period, there may well be a situation in which present or proposed candidates for the new district or regional seats in Scotland can be debarred.
I think this is a situation peculiar to Scotland because our timing of the reorganisation of local government is dif-

ferent from that of England and Wales. We are a year behind them in this regard. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think about this. I am not asking him to give an answer tonight, but I hope that he will give this matter early consideration and perhaps at the Committee stage consider an amendment to the Bill. If he does not, I am afraid that we on the Scottish side will be forced, in the name of justice and democracy, to put down amendments that would safeguard potential candidates—whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal—who might wish to stand in next year's reorganised local government elections.
Not only do we feel the deep concern which I think has been shown by every section of the House tonight, but we remember that in the main these immigrants did not come here of their own volition. I can speak for my own city of Glasgow and say that our general manager of the transport department went over to Pakistan with his officials and persuaded the Pakistanis to come over to make sure that our transport system in Glasgow could run. I am sure that that can be said of London, too, and perhaps of some other cities in England. These Pakistanis came over and they have settled in very well. Most of them are law-abiding members of the community. They certainly do not cause any trouble. I have quite a number of them in my own constituency and I think it a particular honour to represent them.
We should not forget, as has already been said, that the people of West Pakistan in particular were the first to come to our aid during the troubled times of the last war. These things must be taken into account, I should like to put three or four particular points to the Government tonight, because they will have to be answered if we are to get any satisfaction and justice for the Pakistani community.
I should like some more information about the 500 heads of families to whom the Foreign Secretary referred in his opening speech. Have Her Majesty's Government exhausted every avenue, every possibility, in an attempt to persuade Pakistan to come back into the Commonwealth? Before this Bill came forward we should have pursued every avenue, and I do not think we have. I think


that, after allowing time to elapse for the situation to settle, and once we had resolved the position of the prisoners of war, there should have been a possibility that President Bhutto would agree that Pakistan should come back into the Commonwealth. I do not think that that is an absurd idea. After speaking to many Pakistanis in my area, I think that it is a real possibility.
I would also ask the Government to consider seriously the idea of setting up advice centres in areas of the country where there are large concentrations of Pakistani immigrants—in Glasgow, Bradford, London and other places. That could be done without any great cost to the Government and it would be of real assistance to the Home Office.
It is also worth considering, since many of these Pakistanis find English difficult, whether any pamphlets or forms put out should include explanatory notes in their language. That would be only common justice and it would be of great assistance to the many officials who have to deal with these applications. These people form what is called a special case. They are here as citizens of considerable importance in our community. They have made a significant impact on our community. For myself, I welcome the contribution they have made in culture alone.
If, then, we must consider them, will the Minister tell us, with particular reference to those citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, how they stand? If they are denied the right of registration, will they have the right of appeal? I believe that in time the situation will arise in which those 20,000 to 30,000 Kashmiris who have been denied their right of registration may seek other forms of appeal. What course of action is open to the Kashmiris in particular if they are denied the right of registration?
These are fundamental points affecting our good relations with the coloured communities in the United Kingdom. The community relations officers, in particular, are deeply concerned about the implications and workings of the centres. In order to continue the racial harmony we have enjoyed for so long in this country, I believe that it is up to the

Government to ensure that the Bill, if passed in its present form, is couched in such a way that we can lessen the hardship and cater for those cases in which people do not understand what is happening. I speak here in particular of the Kashmiris. The setting up of advice centres at short notice to give all the assistance required to these people with their individual difficulties would in itself go a long way towards creating a better understanding between the Pakistan immigrants and the people of this country.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I apologise for missing the opening speech of the Foreign Secretary and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), but I had to hurry to the House from a speaking engagement in Bradford.
I fully agree that we are here tonight witnessing the dissolution of links which it is sad to see dissolved. Pakistan has now been a member of the Commonwealth for some time. One cannot help feeling that it is totally unnecessary that she should have felt obliged to depart.
One remembers that during the times of the troubles between Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, the Pakistan community in this country were dedicatedly loyal to the Pakistan Government at Islamabad. Throughout that time they ignored substantially the passage of the Immigration Act through the House and its effects on them. They did not notice how their rights were being eroded. All they noticed and all they concentrated on was the fate of their own homeland. At the end of that they were rewarded, regrettably, by the withdrawal of a distraught and upset Pakistan Government from the Commonwealth. One cannot help feeling that the Pakistan Government in their own distressed condition cannot have realised what they were doing to their citizens in this country. One hopes that, at some stage in the future, Pakistan may yet reapply to join the Commonwealth.
Until this Bill becomes law, Pakistanis had the same rights in this country as West Indians; Indians and other Commonwealth citizens. They can be, and have been, justices of the peace. They can vote, they can sit on juries unchallenged. They can work at jobs which


are forbidden to aliens, such as those in the Civil Service. All those privileges disappear with the change of status from Commonwealth citizen to alien.
More than that, the powers given by the transitional provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 with regard to deportation of Pakistanis who were here more than five years by the time the Act came into force are withdrawn for them, so that they can be deported if they commit a criminal offence after five years when, at the moment, they are safe. Even if they have been here for five years, they can be deported if the Government consider that their presence is not conducive to the public good, or if another member of their family has been ordered to be deported. These are some of the changes which come in the train of the change from Commonwealth citizenship to the status of alien.
One must feel uneasy about the provisions of the Bill. First, there is the status of the Azad Kashmiris. The Government have allowed them to vote—have treated them as Pakistanis for many years—and now are relying in effect on a technicality to say that they were really not Pakistanis on 30th January 1972 and therefore are not entitled to apply to register. I hope the Government will think again about these Kashmiris.
There has been a fallacy in most speeches in the debate. Everyone has talked of the right to register. But in the Bill the right to register exists only for those who were here five years before autumn 1971. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to three methods of obtaining British citizenship—first, registration as of right; secondly, registration at the discretion of the Home Secretary; and thirdly, naturalisation. He said that the method chosen in the Bill was the first. I disagree with him. What he said was only partly true.
The real erosion of the rights of immigrants occurred in the Immigration Act when it was said that they would have to be here five years by the time the measure was enacted in order to be able to obtain citizenship as of right by registration. Indeed, every Pakistani and every other Commonwealth immigrant who has come here since autumn 1966 is

not, as I understand it, entitled to register as of right when he has been here five years. When he applies, he has to show, among other things, that he is of good character—which may be a fair provision—but in addition he has to satisfy the Home Secretary that his English or Welsh is of a satisfactory standard. The result of that is that nearly every immigrant who has arrived since autumn 1966 is not able to pass that test, so that, by the 1971 Act already, immigrants arriving since autumn 1966 were virtually disqualified from obtaining citizenship of the United Kingdom by registration.
The Bill is, therefore, saying not that Pakistanis will be entitled to British citizenship but that it will preserve their rights as they existed under present law, which includes Schedule 1 of the Immigration Act 1971, for six months after the enactment of the Bill.

Mr. Lane: The hon. Gentleman is on a false point and I would not like the misunderstanding to continue. The point he makes about the Immigration Act 1971 applies only to people arriving here after that Act came into force. Those arriving after that date will be able to register at the discretion of the Home Secretary, but that does not apply, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is implying, to those who came here before the Act came into force.

Mr. Lyons: I am grateful for that indication. Is the Minister then saying that Pakistanis who came here before 1971, whenever they came, will be able to obtain registration as of right after five years?

Mr. Lane: That is precisely what we are saying.

Mr. Lyons: I am grateful. Of course, I withdraw the point I made to the extent that it was not true. What the Minister said means that only Pakistanis who came after October 1971 will not be able to obtain registration as of right. Is that correct? Does the Minister wish to comment?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has resumed his seat, and the Minister has not risen to reply. If everybody is sitting down, I shall put the Question.

Mr. Lane: May I clear up this point, as it is causing some difficulty? Anyone


who came here up to the end of 1972, when the Immigration Act came fully into force, is entitled to registration as of right when he has completed five years here.

Mr. Lyons: I am most grateful.
I turn to another point in what is clearly a difficult matter of law. We have heard that the South Africa Act passed in 1962 gave South Africans a longer period than is now being granted to Pakistanis to register as United Kingdom citizens. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked why the Government have not followed that example of all those years ago. The Minister has been invited tonight to follow that example in the Bill, and I hope that he will at any rate give some thought to extending the time allowed for registration.
The right is to extend for six months after the enactment of the Bill. We are not told when the Bill is likely to be enacted, and it would be helpful to learn the approximate expected date of enactment. If the enactment takes place in, say, September or October, it seems impossible, on the present wording, for any Pakistani to apply to be on the register compiled in October.
The rights of the Pakistanis under the Bill are preserved for the purposes of the register until next February, but presumably if the Bill has become law by October they will not be Commonwealth citizens for the purposes of the register to be compiled in October. If I am wrong, I should welcome correction, but that is how I understand the Bill. That would effectively mean that Pakistanis would be taken off the register in large numbers between February

Lest it be thought that I am making a constituency point, and that I have a large number of Pakistanis who will vote Labour, I should tell the Minister that the Pakistani vote in Bradford is responsible for the election of a Conservative candidate in the ward with the biggest Pakistani population in Bradford.
The position of East Europeans has been referred to. Clearly, once the Pakistanis become aliens, those who do not take up the option to register in the time available become like the East Europeans. I understand that whereas registration is cost-free, naturalisation costs £40 or £50. All Pakistanis coming to this country after the passage of this Bill will have to take the same language test as other aliens. It will cost £40 or £50 for the aliens and nothing for Commonwealth citizens.
Something should be done to reduce the cost of naturalisation. The reason why many East Europeans in Bradford do not attempt to be naturalised is the cost. The provisions of the Bill mean that in due course under the Common Market treaties, such persons will not be able as aliens to take advantage of the mobility of labour provisions unless they go through the more complicated and difficult process of naturalisation.
There has been a change in the attitude towards Pakistanis as a result of their political leverage. Their political position will be weakened to the extent that they are deprived of the vote. That would not matter very much if there were not people in this country exceedingly hostile to immigrants. Unfortunately there are such people, politically organised, and it would be regrettable if immigrants found themselves less well able to defend their position.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: This is largely a Home Office Bill rather than a Foreign Office Bill and it is surprising that the Home Office Minister is not here to answer the debate. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department is here and has intervened from time to time. I begin by picking up the subject of the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) about the right to secure registration as a British subject as opposed to the possibility of applying for registration under the discretionary powers of the Home Secretary.
As I understand the situation, it is that under Schedule 1 of the Immigration Act 1971 a Commonwealth citizen who had been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for five years prior to the coming into force of the 1971 Act—that is, prior to 1st January 1973—has the right to be registered as a United Kingdom citizen. If the five-year ordinary residence period in the United Kingdom expires after 1st January 1973 then the registration is discretionary.

Mr. Lane: The right to register runs on for anyone who had come here and was ordinarily resident at the end of 1972. If he had arrived in 1971, so that he had completed only one or two years' residence by the end of 1972, when in due course he reaches the five-year residence figure, the right is automatic.

Mr. Fraser: The wording is not terribly clear. We are all glad to have that point clarified.
With the exception of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who may harbour these sentiments but did not express them, everyone else who has spoken has been generous and concerned about the plight of those who are or have been Pakistani citizens and about the plight of those who came from Jammu or Kashmir. It is significant that there has been so much concern—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Pakistan Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until eleven o'clock, and the Bangladesh Bill and the Bahamas Independence Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

PAKISTAN BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Fraser: I think that everyone who has spoken has had in his heart the desire to achieve racial harmony by integrating and conferring on Commonwealth citizens in this country that right under the Bill. I hope that that general sentiment will have been noted by the Home Office Minister who is responsible for the administration of immigration control and citizenship.
We are dealing with the withdrawal of Pakistan from the Commonwealth. The fact that we have to do so is regrettable. It is regrettable because most of us are reluctant to see a member withdraw from the Commonwealth which, with all its imperfections and conflicts of interest, has been able to ride above conflict. The Commonwealth has common financial institutions. Although the world is full of groups of nations which have racial ties, common interests of ideology, economics and political institutions, the significant thing about the Commonwealth is that it has grown out of imperialism and its ties transcend differences of race, religion, ideology and political structure. The diversity has been overlaid by the common bond. That is what gives the Commonwealth its great value.
We need this common bond, which goes beyond the differences of race and other differences among people. The gaining of one member of the Commonwealth, Bangladesh, is no compensation for the loss of another member, Pakistan. The fact is that this is necessary and inevitable. In the words of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who is a valued expert on the Commonwealth:
… we must be careful not to destroy the value of Commonwealth membership by giving


to those who are not members all the privileges of those that are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 939.]
Those words were quoted with approval by the present Prime Minister on 26th February 1962 when as Lord Privy Seal he introduced the South Africa Bill which legislated for the fact that South Africa had left the Commonwealth.
I make two comments on that Bill and compare them with the present situation. Today, the residue of Pakistan remains a member of the Commonwealth. By the residue I mean Bangladesh which will be considered in a Bill later tonight. It is a pity that South-West Africa could not have been treated likewise even though it remained under the tutelage of the South African Government. It is a pity that a place at the Commonwealth table could not be kept for it which recognised our desire to see it eventually become a free member of the Commonwealth of nations. The South Africa Bill made generous provision for
… South African citizens who have ties of blood or service or residence in this country…
Those were the words of the present Prime Minister on 26th February 1962. He went on:
They should also be allowed adequate time to make their decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February 1962; Vol. 654, c. 945.]
Citizens of Burma were given a two-year election and South Africa was given a much longer time, as many hon. Members have pointed out.
Whether a country remains a member of the Commonwealth is very much a sovereign matter for that country over which our Parliament has little control. But we have to legislate for the consequences of Pakistani citizens who remain in the United Kingdom. We have a duty to the whole community as well as to minorities to ensure that those who settle here permanently—those who work here, whose children are born here and educated here—are given as far as possible equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. We are talking about people who have settled in this country and to whom the word "immigrant" is only an historical fact. They are to all intents and purposes fully integrated members of our community. The number of Pakistanis who are councillors or parlia-

mentary candidates is testimony enough to the fact that the word "immigrant" might well be forgotten in respect of those people. We want to think of them as settled here and fully involved in our future.
Since Britain is a multi-racial community and has within it people of different races and religions who are permanently settled here, we must resist any kind of pattern which separates one race from another or one ethnic group from another. It is important to have regard to the race relations aspect of this Bill. This point was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and by others. I should like to see full opportunities and rights accorded to those who have been left uncertain about their rights as a result of the Bill.
Anybody who doubts the proposition that equality of rights, duties and opportunities is important not just to the minority but to the whole community has only to look at the tragic events of Northern Ireland, Pakistan or Bangladesh to know that what I am saying is correct. We do not want to establish in this country, to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, an alien wedge in a literal or legal sense. We want people who as far as possible are fully integrated and who are given all the rights and duties which are accorded to our citizens.
I welcome the provisions of the Bill dealing with the status and rights of up to 80,000 Pakistani citizens who have not yet become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who will become aliens when the Bill becomes law. But I do not believe that the Bill is adequate to achieve that objective.
The rights which the Bill gives to those who came here before Pakistan left the Commonwealth—in other words, those who came here before 30th January 1972—include the right to vote in elections up to 16th February 1974 and the right or possibility, as the case may be, to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I am assured that this is a right if they arrived here before 1st January 1973. The qualification is that of five years' ordinary residence.
I hope that we shall have an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) as to


what extent holidays abroad affect ordinary residence in this country. Could we be given some guidance on that point? I do not believe that those rights are good enough.
I wish to deal with these matters in detail. Voting by former Commonwealth citizens who were Pakistani citizens will be allowed up to 16th February 1974. Such a concession was given in the South Africa Bill, 1962 and one could hardly legislate for anything less because on the present register the electoral registration officer would have an impossible task to distinguish British subjects or those registered as United Kingdom subjects from those who are entitled to register.
If this concession is to be meaningful, then it will have to be extended until 16th February 1975. When this Bill becomes law, most of the local elections will be out of the way. This Parliament has a further two years to run, and therefore it is unlikely that this concession will allow Pakistani citizens to vote, except in by-elections before 16th February 1974.
What is more important is that registration takes time. It is difficult enough to get the forms to register as a British subject, let alone to register for this purpose.
There will also be the tremendous problems of the electoral registration officer in making up the new register. If all 80,000 of those who are eligible to register as United Kingdom citizens start doing so as soon as the Bill becomes law, it is by no means clear that even if they become United Kingdom citizens they will get on to the register after 16th February 1974, which is the date up to which they can vote as the Bill stands at the moment.
The new register is not made up on 16th February 1974; it is made up on 10th October 1973. That means that between the passage of this Bill and the date when the new election register is made up, they have a very short time indeed to get their registrations completed. In fact, I estimate that there will be only about three months from the time that this Bill becomes law to the time when the new register is made up.
On my present information, it is taking about three months for the Home Office

to complete the registration. If a man puts his registration in straight away when the Bill becomes law, he may well not be registered as a United Kingdom citizen by 10th October 1973. Therefore, he will not be eligible to go on to the next election register. He may, of course, get his registration in November or December 1973, but that will not help him at all. He will be disfranchised for a year because of the time that the register is made up. This will mean the risk of the omission of many people who would otherwise be qualified to vote.

Mr. Kaufmann: Would my hon. Friend further emphasise that point in the light of the rate at which present registrations are taking place—not on the Government's estimate of more than 2,000 who will apply every week?

Mr. Fraser: It could mean disfranchisement on a massive scale. If all 80,000 tried to register in a period of three months, it would mean about 1,000 registrations per day, assuming that the Home Office staff worked on Saturdays and Sundays as well. It could mean disfranchisement on a massive scale. I think that is to be avoided, and I hope that qualification for voting purposes will be extended until 16th February 1975, which will make the job of the electoral registration officers very much easier, and will be much more just to those who would otherwise lose the vote.
The next criticism I want to make is about the provision in the Bill for registration as a United Kingdom citizen. The voting provisions would lack effectiveness even if the registration for citizenship were completed on a large scale and within about three months of this Bill becoming law. If we took not the 80,000 Pakistan citizens but an 80,000 cross-section of the indigenous population of this country and asked them to complete a fairly complex form which needed to be supported by documents, which had to be taken to a Commissioner of Oaths to be sworn, how many of the cross-section of the indigenous population would miss out on it? One has only to look at the take-up of rate and rent rebates or to ask one's wife whether she will complete an application form for a driving licence or would prefer it to be done for her to know that a good many people would miss out.
If we add the present natural reluctance of people to complete forms, the problems of language, of literacy in the English language and the possibility of a genuine mistake being made which could prevent a person obtaining citizenship because he might find that he could not submit the correct form within six months, it becomes clear that we are being unfair and inconsiderate to those whom most hon. Members would seek to have registered as United Kingdom subjects.
I urge the Minister to extend the period to one of about two years. The loss of United Kingdom citizenship could be vital to people in the Civil Service, to those who hold public appointments and to those who run post offices. The loss of the right to register could be a significant blow to the involvement of Pakistani citizens in the community.
Compared with the other precedents, six months is ludicrously short. The period accorded to Burmese was two years. The maximum period accorded to South African citizens was eight years and seven months. It was three years and seven months in order to notify their intention to register as United Kingdom citizens and a further five years from the date of giving notice of intention to turn that intention into an actual registration. When that is compared with the six months given in the Bill it is seen to be grossly unfair.
The argument is made if one looks at the words of the present Prime Minister when he moved the Second Reading of the South Africa Bill and spoke about the need for "adequate time". It is an argument which has been supported by almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. Therefore I suggest that the period be lengthened to one or two years.
Only yesterday we discussed public expenditure. The adoption of my suggestion would in itself lead to a saving in public expenditure. It would not be necessary to take on additional staff to deal with applications. Gradually the number of registrations will tail off as more people become registered. So there is a strong argument in principle, and there is a subsidiary economic argument for accepting that the period should be

longer. If it is not longer it will be unfair and discriminatory. It may have an adverse effect on race relations.
There are some questions germane to registration which I wish to ask the Minister. First, how long is registration expected to take? I believe that the present estimate is two or three months. That period ought to be cut down if the provisions of the Bill are to be effective.
Second, is it possible to allow the immunities from the effects of being an alien to be continued once application is made instead of from the time that the application is granted? If it is not, there will be an interim period between the making of an application and its being granted when the applicant will be an alien and when the immunities will not be in operation. This applies especially to registration on the voting register. I know that immunity from deportation is extended in certain circumstances, but I hope that it can be carried further for the purposes of registration, since being a United Kingdom citizen is an essential prerequisite to the holding of many public offices.
Third, what efforts will be made to encourage registration? Under the Urban Aid Programme will the Home Office offer additional money to local authorities and organisations such as community relations committees to help them make known the necessity to register and to assist in the filling in of forms? It is important if we are to build a community which works together to see that everyone plays a part in the community and is registered as a United Kingdom citizen.
My third criticism relates to the qualifying date for coming to the United Kingdom, a point that has been made repeatedly by hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The date chosen is 30th January 1972. Pakistan citizens who came here between 30th January 1972 and the date when the Bill becomes law will have come here legally as Commonwealth or British citizens. The terms are interchangeable. The Bill deprives them of the prospective rights that they had when they were Commonwealth or British citizens. There is no parallel for this in the South Africa Act 1962.
Very few people will be involved, apart from the problem of the Kashmiris. Therefore, I think it right to make the operative date at least the date when the Bill was published—14th May 1973. This would fit in with the pledges, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) given by the noble Lord Windlesham in another place on 17th February 1972. After all, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, we may otherwise have expected a statement from the Government to the contrary.
It is important to try to include as many people as possible in the provisions for registration to avoid aliens, if they become aliens, having to register with the police. We have a hell of a problem with police manpower. We do not want to throw more tasks on to the police force. Reporting to the police has never been regarded as good for race relations. I hope, therefore, that the qualifying date will be moved forward.
Most of all, I hope that the qualifying date will be moved forward to obviate any misunderstanding or doubt about the status of citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Worry about their status has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Everybody is agreed that, no matter what their legal status may have been, they have been treated as British subjects and entered on election registers.

Lord Balniel: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister shakes his head, but in a comment in The Guardian the Government were not so sure:
Until recently, said the Home Office, people from Jammu and Kashmir have come to this country with Pakistan passports. 
While that was so, they were treated for the purpose of immigration as if they were Commonwealth citizens, but for nationality purposes they were treated as aliens. 
The Home Office could not comment on why, if the Kashmiris had been regarded as aliens, they had been allowed to go on to electoral registers and to vote". 
It is the common experience of those who have been concerned with this problem that these people have gone on to electoral registers and have been treated as British citizens. Nothing much is to be lost by moving this qualifying date forward and resolving the difficulty about

nationality by having them dealt with as other Pakistan citizens who acquired Pakistani citizenship before 30th January 1972.
Part of the citizenship provisions of the Bill still appear to be matters of expediency in response to a crisis. Some of the points that have been thrown up in the debate emphasise the need for a thorough-going review of our citizenship law. As the years roll on the problems of British protected persons and British subjects without citizenship become more difficult. I do not see why it should be so much more difficult and involved for an alien to become a United Kingdom citizen. We ought to encourage those who are permanently settled and throw in their lot with the United Kingdom to become United Kingdom citizens with relative ease. Of course, there must be safeguards against any instrusion into our security. But the difficulty of a British protected person becoming a United Kingdom citizen is far too great. He has to go through the naturalisation process. I hope, therefore, that we shall have an announcement about a thoroughgoing review of the law on citizenship very shortly.
I conclude as I begun. The Bill is regrettable. If there is any chance of the door still being left open for Pakistan to come into the Commonwealth, I hope that will be done. Many hon. Members have said that they would like to see Pakistan come back into the Commonwealth, and I endorse that view.
The general line of speeches has been that the Bill should be humane and fair. There has been almost complete unanimity about extending the period of registration of citizenship and about the voting provisions. I believe that the general wish is to ensure that we have good and harmonious community and race relations. This is primarily a Home Office Bill. I hope that note will have been taken of those sentiments, and that, with that objective in mind, the Bill will be improved in Committee.

10.26 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): Like the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), I think that every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate will agree that it has been a thoughtful,


generous and constructive debate, albeit in many respects rather technical. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) quoted a letter from the Home Office which he said was obscurantist and obscure. I should not like to refer to his own speech in those terms, but it contained many technical points. Many of those points and many made throughout the debate can perhaps better be dealt with in Committee. None the less, I will of course try to answer many of the matters raised in the debate.
In the concluding speech in a debate on a Bill such as this, it is right to bear in mind how it came about and what its purpose is. On 30th January 1972, the Government of Pakistan announced that they were leaving the Commonwealth with immediate effect. This was a decision that they were perfectly within their rights to take, but it was a positive decision from which certain consequences flowed.
The relationship between foreign countries is different from the relationship between members of the Commonwealth. Therefore, some changes had to take place in the relationship between this country and Pakistan. Things simply could not go on as they had gone on before. But we must remember that the initial act which made the Bill necessary was a decision not of Her Majesty's Government but of the Government of Pakistan.
As for the purpose of the Bill, Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth had created a new situation and some alterations of our legislation were necessary. It has been suggested in the debate that Pakistan became a foreign country and that Pakistanis became aliens from the moment that Pakistan left the Commonwealth. This argument is understandable in layman's terms, but it is oversimplified.
Some of our legislation merely refers to Commonwealth countries, without referring to them by name. When Pakistan left the Commonwealth, provisions of this kind clearly ceased to apply to Pakistan. She was not referred to by name, so, on leaving the Commonwealth, she ceased to be affected by that kind of legislation.
But other British legislation, including the important British Nationality Act of 1948, refers to Pakistan by name, and until those laws are changed, Pakistan and Pakistanis in this country continue in certain respects to enjoy Commonwealth privileges. The law had to be changed; hence the Bill.
In drawing up the Bill, as my right hon. Friend has said, we had two principles in mind. The first was that the value of the Commonwealth should not be diminished by allowing a country which had left the Commonwealth or its citizens to enjoy indefinitely those privileges which come from Commonwealth membership. The second was that we considered it right to be fair and humane to those Pakistanis who came to Britain before Pakistan left the Commonwealth in the belief that they would be entitled to certain benefits.
During the debate, it has been suggested that we erred in both ways. Some hon. Members have said that we have been too generous to the Pakistanis living in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] Some hon. Members have suggested that, where we proposed automatic registration, naturalisation would be a more appropriate method. [Interruption.] I am pointing out that there are two different views. Let me put it like this: it has been put forward that we have been too generous to the Pakistanis living in this country, but others have pointed out the difference between this Bill and the South Africa Act and have felt that we have not been generous enough. Perhaps the debate indicates both the difficulty of the problem and the possibility that we may have the balance about right.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister give way?

Lord Balniel: No, because I have much to say.
The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) thought that we had brought forward the Bill too soon. The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) also suggested that we should postpone the Bill because of the possibility, in their opinion, of Pakistan returning to the Commonwealth. But President Bhutto has said that his


position is irrevocable. It is necessary for the United Kingdom to bring her law on this nationality issue and the other issues involved into a correct position.
On the other hand, we have been asked why we have taken so long to prepare the Bill. The South Africa Bill had its Second Reading nine months after South Africa had left the Commonwealth, whereas this Bill has been introduced some 16 months after Pakistan left the Commonwealth. The South Africa Act was 10 years ago. The situation of this country today and the problems that it faces are very different from 10 years ago. In particular, there are far more Pakistanis living in this country than there ever were South Africans. It seems to us essential that we should study very carefully indeed the implications of all the aspects of the Bill, particularly the new problems of community relations, and should make sure that we get the answer absolutely right.

Mr. Richard: Will the Minister give way?

Lord Balniel: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue, because he made a long speech and I have much to say.
Some hon. Members asked why we were giving the Pakistanis so much time to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. [Interruption.] Some asked why it was so little and others why it was so much. Those who developed the argument said that as from the moment when the Bill becomes law all Pakistanis will become aliens and they should, if they wish, become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by applying for naturalisation as other aliens do.
The Government believe that this would be unfair to those people who came to this country believing in good faith under the law at that time that they would be treated as Commonwealth citizens and have the Commonwealth citizen's privilege of registering as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies after five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggests that Pakistanis who have been resident here for less than five years

should acquire citizenship by naturalisation rather than registration. I think that was his argument. In framing the Bill we had to decide what the right cut-off date should be. We think it logical that this should be the date when Pakistan left the Commonwealth. Persons who came here before that date, that is, when Pakistan was still a Commonwealth country, should, we think, be allowed the right to build up the qualifying period of five years and then qualify for automatic registration as a Commonwealth citizen.
Furthermore, if we had followed the course of insisting on the process of naturalisation, it would contrast most unfavourably with the treatment which we gave to South Africans. South African citizens of this country at the time when South Africa left the Commonwealth were given a generous period of grace in which to register as United Kingdom citizens. It is only fair that Pakistanis should be given time in which to exercise that option. The time granted to Pakistanis is shorter than that granted to South Africans because the problems now facing this country and the present situation are different from those of 10 years ago. We believe that we have given an adequate amount of time for all those Pakistanis who wish to register to do so.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and other hon. Members criticised the period of grace of six months after the build-up period of five years. Most of the people concerned have been here for five years and they should not find the period of six months to make up their minds to apply to register too short. Others who have been here less than five years will have a build-up period of five years and then a period of six months after that.
There is another argument which has not been raised and which should be considered. Pakistanis have an easier decision to make than South Africans because South Africa did not allow dual nationality. Therefore, a South African who took out United Kingdom citizenship had to give up his South African citizenship. Pakistanis who are registered as United Kingdom citizens can still remain Pakistan citizens. The decision for them is that much less difficult.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has explained the problems of the Pakistanis and he mentioned the special problems which Britain has now as opposed to 1962. What are those special problems, bearing in mind that the Pakistanis will remain here whether or not they register within six months?

Lord Balniel: We have problems of community relations and it is of the utmost importance that those problems are treated with the greatest of care. It is also of the utmost importance that the problems of nationality should be considered as quickly as possible. That is a view which led us to believe that it was right to give people a period in which to build up an automatic entitlement to registration over five years even if they have been here for only one year before January 1972.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—

Lord Bainiel: I now refer to one of the most important matters which was raised in the debate—namely, the position of persons coming from Kashmir. We had an extremely knowledgeable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) and a particularly thoughtful and constructive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) about the special case of the Kashmiris. Many hon. Members have mentioned the special case of those who come from Jammu and Kashmir, and have suggested that in the case of these people, who form a substantial proportion of the Pakistani community in this country, we are being discriminatory.
It is important to get the facts clear so that when we debate the matter fully in Committee at least the facts will be established. Until February of this year persons carrying Pakistan passports describing them as natives of the State of Jammu and Kashmir—in other words, persons from the part of Kashmir which is on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line—were not treated by the Pakistan Government in all respects as Pakistan citizens. We followed the Pakistan Government's definition and therefore persons in this country with these passports did not have the status of full Commonwealth citizens.
They were treated as British protected persons for some purposes, including immigration. Therefore they received Commonwealth treatment on immigration matters. But they were not British protected persons under the British Nationality Acts and therefore were treated as aliens in other respects. Consequently they did not have the right to vote or to occupy certain offices and employments, including posts in the Civil Service.
Perhaps the most important point is that they did not have the right to register as United Kingdom citizens after five years. This was the status which persons from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir had in this country on the date that Pakistan left the Commonwealth. In February this year, after Pakistan had left the Commonwealth, the Pakistan Government granted to these people the status of Pakistani citizens.
In drawing up this Bill, however, it seemed to us that amongst the important things to bear in mind were the date on which Pakistan left the Commonwealth, the persons who were in this country at that time and the privileges they enjoyed. To allow persons from Kashmir to benefit from the registration provisions of this Bill would be to grant to them, after Pakistan left the Commonwealth, privileges which they did not enjoy when Pakistan was in the Commonwealth.
The House would wonder whether such a course of action was wise or logical. However, the matter has been raised by virtually every hon. Member and in particular by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court and we can deal with it in more detail in Committee.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hen. Friend be more accurate in saying that their status was not regarded by the Pakistan Government as being in dispute? It was a status that was accorded by the United Nations and the Security Council in resolutions which the United Kingdom always supported and in many cases moved. In that regard will he also agree that the whole problem of dates would be obviated if the retrospection in the Bill were removed?

Lord Balniel: I think that I am right in saying that the citizenship which we described, although it might have been in a United Nations resolution, derives from


the Pakistan definition, but this is a matter which we could look at with great care in Committee because views have been expressed which we have to consider carefully on an issue such as this.
Persons who acquired Pakistani citizenship after Pakistan left the Commonwealth are not of course debarred from obtaining British citizenship, but they will have to seek naturalisation, rather than being able to seek registration after five years' residence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart asked whether the people from Jammu and Kashmir would have to register with the police after being here for many years. There is no question of that being required. It is only the Pakistanis who enter as aliens seeking employment and so forth after Royal Assent who will be required, like other aliens, to register with the police. I think that that will remove a worry in my hon. Friend's mind.
Another category of people mentioned this afternoon are those Pakistanis who arrived in this country after Pakistan left the Commonwealth but before the Bill receives Royal Assent. It has been argued that when they arrived in this country the law was still treating Pakistanis as Commonwealth citizens. The argument goes on that therefore they also should benefit from the registration provisions of this Bill. Here again we must return to the crucial date, 30th January 1972. When Pakistan left the Commonwealth, these people, of whom there are in any case a very small number, were not in this country, and therefore they came here knowing that Pakistan was no longer a Commonwealth member.
The Government's view is that it would not be right that they should enjoy the same provisions for registration granted under this Bill to Pakistan citizens who were already here on that date. But it will be open to them also after five years' residence to apply for naturalisation if they so wish.
People coming from Pakistan after January 1972 surely cannot have imagined that the fact of their country having left the Commonwealth would not affect their position as Commonwealth citizens. To have put up a notice at the point of immigration would have meant that we had already decided what action

we would take. [Interruption.] If one's country leaves the Commonwealth and one then enters the United Kingdom, it is reasonable to expect that one's position will not be exactly the same as if it were still in the Commonwealth.
Various hon. Members spoke about informing the public of the provisions of the Bill. The Home Office staff is being strengthened to implement the Bill's requirements. The Home Office is embarking on a substantial programme of information on television and radio and in articles in the Press most read by the immigrant community, to ensure that there is a widespread understanding of the provisions. We shall certainly consider the suggested setting up of advisory centres in those areas where there is a high density of immigrant population.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says that as from 30th January 1972 Pakistanis ceased to be Pakistanis in the true legal sense that they were before that date. The Government have consistently disagreed with his legal interpretation of the effect of Pakistan's leaving the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that those who entered after 30th January 1972, but before the Bill was introduced on 14th May this year, should have expected, in some obscure and as yet undefined way, that their status would be different in the future from that which it had been at that moment in the Government's interpretation of English law. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that?

Lord Balniel: I am saying that I imagine that the common sense reaction of Pakistanis living in Pakistan, knowing that their Government had on their own volition announced that they were irrevocably leaving the Commonwealth, would be to assume that on coming to this country they would not be granted the same Commonwealth status as had been granted to those who came here to reside when Pakistan was a member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Richard: All the way through this debate the Government have said—and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has dissented from the proposition—that the mere fact that


Pakistan leaves the Commonwealth does not alter the legal status of Pakistan under the British Nationality Act, 1948, and that therefore Pakistanis post-30th January 1972 means precisely the same as Pakistanis pre-30th January 1972. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Pakistanis who came to this country after 30th January 1972, if they were extremely well read and perceptive in their reliance on the Government's opinion of what the law was, should somehow have anticipated that they would be discriminated against legally thereafter?

Lord Balniel: It is a question of the common sense of the immigrants and the fact that we have to choose a date. Surely it is logical to choose the date when Pakistan herself, of her own volition, left the Commonwealth. This seems to us an appropriate date because that was the date when Pakistan wanted to leave the Commonwealth.

Mr. Richard: It is not the date when the legal effects of that decision arise. The Government have said that the effects arise on the passage of the Bill. I agreed with the Minister, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did not. However, if the legal effects of Pakistan leaving the Commonwealth do not arise until 14th May, why pick 30th January as the operative date?

Lord Balniel: We have to pick a date, and the date which is most appropriate is the date chosen by the Pakistan Government themselves. That seems to me the date which applies. It has been the cut-off date for all purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: Would my right hon. Friend allow one more attempt? He is saying that a Pakistani who came on 31st January should have perceived that his situation was not what the Home Office and other authorities were asserting at the time but in fact was quite different. Is he saying that they came here on assumptions different from those which the Government held at the time and hold now? How could they possibly perceive that?

Lord Balniel: I think that my right hon. Friend is confusing the issue. Surely the House can think it not unreasonable

for Pakistani Citizens to take the advice of the Pakistan Government—[Interruption]—not that of my right hon. Friend—as to date chosen by them when they leave the Commonwealth. It seems a reasonable assumption to make.

Mr. Richard: Mr. Richard rose—

Lord Balniel: We have had an extremely technical and complex debate involving Commonwealth voting rights, the cut-off date, the relationship of this country to Pakistan and other matters. These can be discussed in Committee. I have given an undertaking to consider carefully, in particular, the points made about Kashmiri citizens—and that alone is a complex issue. I have given an assurance which I should have thought would satisfy the House.
On voting rights, I have been asked why Pakistanis are to continue to be allowed to vote until February next year. The answer to this question is a practical answer. This is a provision which is more generous than in the case of South Africa. There are thousands of Pakistanis on the electoral register throughout the country. They could not in any case be excluded from voting because they had ceased to be British subjects. It is true that their votes could be rejected on scrutiny by a court, but we decided that the fairest thing would be to let them vote lawfully at any election held while the present register is in force. A new electoral register will be prepared in the autumn and the authorities concerned will have the duty of excluding from it the names of Pakistani citizens who do not also have citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
As my right hon. Friend said, we regretted Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth, but we accepted it. Our task is to recognise the fact in our domestic law and to establish a new legal relationship with a Pakistan now outside the Commonwealth. But our task is not only to establish a new constitutional relationship between one country and another but also to ensure that human beings living in this country are not harmed by the tragedies of the subcontinent and are treated humanely, fairly and decently in accordance with the spirit of the law which applied when they came to make their home here. We all


regret Pakistan's decision to leave the Commonwealth, but it did it of its own volition and the Bill is a natural consequence of that decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

PAKISTAN [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making provision in connection with Pakistan's withdrawal from the Commonwealth, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with applications for the registration of persons as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. —[Lord Balniel.]

BANGLADESH BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.58 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will be aware of the circumstances which led to the emergence of the State of Bangladesh from the conflict of December 1971. Her Majesty's Government accorded de jure recognition to Bangladesh on 4th February 1972. On 18th April 1972, Bangladesh joined the Commonwealth.
The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to make the necessary changes to British law to take account of the fact that Bangladesh is now an independent sovereign State within the Commonwealth. The Bill will, in certain respects, have retrospective effect to 4th February 1972, the date when Her Majesty's Government recognised Bangladesh. The introduction of the Bill has been timed to coincide with that of the Pakistan Bill,

since the subjects dealt with by the two Bills are to some extent inter-related.
This is a simple Bill. It is largely based on the nearest precedent, the Singapore Act 1966, which amended our law to take account of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia and its establishment as a separate, independent Commonwealth country.
The majority of the Bill's clauses are of a technical nature dealing, for example, with the insertion of the word Bangladesh in legislation which refers to independent Commonwealth countries by name. When Pakistan became a republic in 1956, we passed legislation on the usual lines to secure that the operation of our existing law in relation to Pakistan was not affected. Clause 1 of this Bill makes corresponding provision in relation to Bangladesh.
The most important clauses of the Bill are those dealing with nationality. Persons from Bangladesh in this country have so far enjoyed the privileges of Commonwealth citizenship only because, paradoxically, they retained their Pakistan citizenship under Pakistan legislation.
Clause 2(1) of the Bill therefore amends the British Nationality Act of 1948 in order to secure that persons who are citizens of Bangladesh under the law of Bangladesh will possess the status of Commonwealth citizens under our law.
Bangladesh passed a law on 15th December 1972 providing for citizenship of Bangladesh. When first published, this law was so drafted as to cause some doubt whether many of the people from Bangladesh in this country would qualify for Bangladesh citizenship. The Bangladesh Government has since published an amendment to the law making it clear that persons from Bangladesh in this country have Bangladesh citizenship.
Any persons from Bangladesh who do not qualify for Bangladesh citizenship would of course still retain their Pakistan nationality, although they would become aliens once the Pakistan Bill becomes law.
However, it is possible that Pakistan might at some time in the future amend its law to deprive persons connected with Bangladesh of Pakistan citizenship and the persons affected might include those settled in this country who have not


acquired Bangladesh citizenship. If this were to happen any people in this category in this country would become stateless.
Clause 2(2) therefore guards against such a possibility by enabling the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to make an order under which they could still be treated as citizens of Pakistan and so retain their option to apply for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the transitional arrangements of the Pakistan Bill.
I should emphasise that this is a precautionary measure since in the present circumstances we see no reason to suppose that the situation which I have just described is likely to arise.
We welcomed Bangladesh's decision to join the Commonwealth as an independent, sovereign State. It is therefore logical that we should make the necessary amendments to our law to take account of this new situation. I am sure that the House will wish to speed this Bill on its way.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: The Government are getting themselves in the most frightful muddle this evening. I assume that 3rd February 1972 is the date upon which Bangladesh became an independent republic. Is that the significance of the date as it appears in the Bill? I assume that someone on the Treasury Bench will be capable of telling me what is the significance of that date since it appears in about four different places.

Lord Balniel: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was listening to what I said. I said that the Bill will in certain respects have retrospective effect to 4th February—not 3rd February —1972, the date upon which Her Majesty's Government recognised Bangladesh.

Mr. Richard: I am much obliged. So the British Government recognised Bangladesh as from 4th February 1972. Prior to that date citizens of Bangladesh were presumably, in British law, citizens of Pakistan. As from 30th January 1972 Pakistan ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth. In the unlikely event

that there is someone who would have been a citizen of Bangladesh had he remained there but who came to the United Kingdom between 3th January 1972 and 4th February 1972, he is presumably in a limbo. He is not Pakistani, because he cannot be admitted under the Pakistan measure we have dealt with, and he is not Bangalees until that measure comes up for recognition.
I do not know whether there are many, or any, such people. The number is not important. What is important is the idocy of the present state of affairs and the anomalies and absurdities which will arise if the Government insist on the date of 30th January 1972 in the Pakistani measure. The dates in the two measures will not coincide and someone may find that he is a citizen of neither country or both.
Therefore, there are certain points of detail in the Bill which we shall want to look at in Committee. Particularly, I shall want to look at the terms in Clause 2(2) by which it would seem that any provision of the law of Pakistan made after 3rd February 1972 comes within the provisions of that subsection. The effect on British law, whether in the Pakistan Act, the British Nationality Act 1948 or any other Act, is capable of being nullified by a decision of the Government by means of a statutory instrument passed by this House which would secure that whatever the effect of the provision it would be disregarded in determining for the purposes of the 1948 Act whether a person is a citizen of Pakistan.
Secondly, the provisions of Clause 3(1) say that the Government by Order in Council after the passage of three years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed may make adaptations by a mere Order in Council of an Act of Parliament already on the Statute Book without the necessity for that Act to be brought before the House for amendment. On the face of it, this seems a very wide provision. I am not exactly certain what the constitutional effect is, but on the face of it to give a Government this power by a mere Order in Council—subject presumably an annulment, but one is not sure —seems a rather large interference with normal constitutional procedure. In the normal way we amend one Act by another Act.
On the merits of the Bill I do not think there is a great difference between the two sides of the House. The Bill is clearly necessary in view of what has happened on the Indian sub-continent in the last two years. If Pakistan ceasing to be a member of the Commonwealth is irrevocable and the Government are treating it as an established fact, we must obviously make provision as we have in the Pakistan Bill and it is obviously right that in the case of Bangladesh we should make provision for the creation of Bangladesh and its accession to the Commonwealth.
I think the feelings of the whole House about the creation of Bangladesh were somewhat mixed. At one and the same time we regretted that a Commonwealth country, Pakistan, was engaged in civil war, and we regretted the disturbance and disruption which it suffered. As I said in the debate on the last Bill, it was perhaps clear that the attempt to create one political unit out of both East and West Pakistan, in retrospect and with hindsight, was doomed to failure from the start. It is as well that we have recognised that fact and, with the emergence of Pakistan as an independent State on the sub-continent, it is as well that this Bill should be given an unopposed Second Reading.
I will say only one word about the future. Someone once asked, "If there are to be two Pakistans, why not five?" Whatever form the political organisation on the Indian sub-continent may take, the real problem facing the people there remains basically the same, namely the problem of how to equate the food supply to the population, how to raise the standard of living of some of the poorest people in the world, and how to industrialise a nation of this size and complexity. On that part of the task the Opposition wish Bangladesh well in its future.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall not detain the House long. I want to take part in this debate because this Bill again emphasises the need for a radical review of our laws of citizenship.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that until the introduction of the Bill Bangalees resident in the United Kingdom had enjoyed the rights of Common-

wealth membership and the rights of Commonwealth citizens because they enjoyed Pakistan citizenship. When we discussed the Pakistan Bill a little earlier this evening, it was argued that Pakistan citizenship in the intermediate stage did not confer rights. Therefore, it would appear that both the Pakistan Bill and the Bangladesh Bill could be taken together in Committee because their ramifications appear to dovetail./
The Minister said that Bangladesh had issued a law giving Bengalees, people who originate from what was East Pakistan and who are now resident in the United Kingdom, Bangladesh citizenship. This matter has wider implications than was at first imagined. Pakistan does not recognise Bangladesh and it is questionable whether we are right to say that Pakistan citizens in our law should be subject to the edicts of the Government in Dacca.
My right hon. Friend argued that what was being done was necessary to protect Bangalees in the United Kingdom in the event of Pakistan renouncing its Bengali citizens in Britain. That is a hypothetical point and we should not seek to legislate for what a Government of another independent sovereign country may or may not do.
We then come to the question how one defines who are and who are not Bangalees as opposed to Pakistanis and how one identifies them. This matter has implications in terms of the register of electors which we discussed on the Pakistan Bill. Are we to demand that these people produce identification papers before the electoral registration officer can do his work? In many instances they will have Bangalee names and be quickly identified, but some Bangalee names are similar to Pakistani names since they are Muslim in origin and are not easy to distinguish.
On the question of documentation, passports and so on, some Bangalees resident in the United Kingdom have Pakistani passports which may just as well have been issued in Karachi as in Dacca because of the earlier unitary nature of the State. Exactly how do we identify these people?
Lastly, I come to a practical matter. Schedule I refers to the Armed Forces.


Service in the Armed Forces is not open to aliens. In the Schedule, we rightly and appropriately continue the possibility for citizens of Bangladesh to serve in the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. It will be remembered that by virtue of the Pakistan Bill, Azad Kashmiris are to become aliens. In the days of the British Army in India, at least 50 per cent. of recruits came from the people of Azad Kashmir and Punjab. It is perhaps the supreme irony that the people most inclined to military service may find themselves, as a result of the Pakistan Bill, unable to serve in the British Armed Forces, whereas the Bengalis, who have never been regarded as a martial people, will be able to continue to serve.
In all these matters, I am emphasising the need for a new law of citizenship and the need to consider both these Bills together in Committee.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I welcome the Bill. In doing so I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am a citizen of Bangladesh and Chairman of the British Bangladesh Trust which was set up last year to establish a closer relationship between Britain and Bangladesh.
In welcoming the Bill, I dissociate myself from the academic and legalistic interpretations adopted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who seemed to me to misunderstand completely the reasons for the creation of Bangladesh and the emotive force behind it.
Bangladesh was created by the overwhelming will of millions of people who felt that the colonial régime of Pakistan could no longer be borne and that the military repression of Pakistan had to be fought against with all the will at their command. In recognising in this Bill the eventual emergence of Bangladesh as a full member of the Commonwealth, we should recognise the background to the struggle of the Bengali people for their legitimate rights.
It is all very well to talk about the unitary State of Pakistan which Britain created. For many years that unitary State was a fiction. The Bengali people suffered under the yoke of domination

from Islamabad and in time it became completely intolerable. Anyone who looks at the background to the struggle over many years—not only over the nine months of guerrilla war which ended in December 1971—will know that the Bengali people were completely justified in their fight for the independence that they achieved.
I pay tribute to the attitude of this Government not only in recent months but during the months when Bangladesh was struggling for its independence. This Government allowed the independence movement for Bangladesh to have its home here in London, and they allowed Mr. Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury to lead that independence movement and to develop a campaign for the rights of the people of Bangladesh. Mr. Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury of course is now the President and Head of State of Bangladesh. One of the reasons why there are such good relations between Britain and Bangladesh is that this country, adopting the traditions of many centuries, allowed the people of Bangladesh in Britain to campaign for their independence even during the months when it looked as though their campaign was forlorn. I thank this Government for what they did during that period and for the humanity that they showed.
I also thank the Government for adopting an intelligent attitude to the emergence of Bangladesh without in any way antagonising Pakistan. They have adopted a sensible course.
I share the regrets expressed during the last debate by so many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that Pakistan decided to leave the Commonwealth. It was a completely unecessary act. I very much hope that it will decide to come back. I do not believe that that act was in any way brought about by the actions of Her Majesty's Government who have tried to be fair to both sides.
I should like to deal with two specific issues. The first is the urgent need for the exchange of populations in the Indian sub-continent. There are many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Bengalis still detained in Pakistan, and they wish to return to Bangladesh, their homeland. They are being kept in Pakistan against their will. There are many thousands


of Biharis in Bangladesh who have opted for Pakistan citizenship. There are also many prisoners of war kept in India, and they want to return to their homeland in Pakistan.
The Indian and Bangladesh Administrations have made a sensible proposal that there should be an exchange of these populations to bring an end to this human suffering that has gone on for far too long.
I welcome the statement made by the Leader of the House last Thursday when I drew attention to Motion No. 315, which has been signed by a larger number of right hon. and hon. Members than any motion since the new Session began apart from the motion on thalidomide children proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). That shows the tremendous support there is for a just solution to the problems in the Indian sub-continent. I very much hope that the expression of view by the Leader of the House on Thursday will be followed by the Government in all possible quarters assisting in bringing about a solution to this problem.
The second issue to which I wish to refer concerns the continuing debts of Pakistan which certain members of the Aid Consortium wish to visit on the new country of Bangladesh. This seems patently unfair when it is clear to anyone who has looked at the situation that Bangladesh has not been able to enjoy any of the assets that Pakistan had from previous years. Bangladesh has not been able to acquire any of the ships or aircraft, and it certainly has not been able to acquire any of the gold reserves that Pakistan had before Bangladesh achieved independence. The gold reserves were removed from the Bank of England to Peking in secret flights by Boeing aircraft of PIA, and I believe that they still reside in the People's Republic of China.
As Bangladesh has had no access to the assets of Pakistan, to which it contributed when it was East Pakistan, it is not reasonable that it should be expected to pick up Pakistan's debts. For certain countries to suggest that Bangladesh should not have aid and assistance to enable it to recover from the awful disasters that it has suffered in the last few years, because it has failed to pick

up what are alleged to be Pakistan's debts, is patently unfair. I hope that the Government will see to it that, in the councils where this problem is debated, they will take this reasonable view and argue that, until Pakistan recognises Bangladesh, there can be no question of Bangladesh accepting any of Pakistan's debts.
I welcome the Bill and thank the Government for the way in which they have treated the Bangalees residing in this country and for the treatment which the Bill will accord them.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). It is probably a consequence of the fact that we are debating the Bill immediately after the Pakistan Bill, which involved many technicalities and mainly affected people living in this country, that both Front Bench speeches on this Bill also concentrated on technicalities. There has not been as strong an expression of welcome from the House as I would have wished to see for the fact that Bangladesh is now becoming a member of the Commonwealth. The Minister expressed a welcome, but I wanted to express it more enthusiastically.
With my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, I made an emotionally shattering visit to the refugee camps in India in April 1971 and made a brief and somewhat illicit visit into what was then East Pakistan. I saw something of the terrible destruction and agony of that period. I subsequently went back to Bangladesh, last May. To see then a country whose independence was created out of more suffering, hardship, poverty and death than that of any other country at any time in history, developing and struggling to get on its feet, to see it succeeding, to see the immense and remarkably successful efforts of its people and its potential to become a thriving democratic country in the Commonwealth despite its poverty and the disasters it has suffered was immensely encouraging.
Therefore, I strongly associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said. I further endorse his remarks about the debts, and also about the exchange of population. I spent a great deal of time


last May visiting the camps where the Biharis were living in conditions of extreme squalor, although nothing like the conditions in which the refugees had been living whom I had seen a year earlier. I hope that Pakistan will accept the need for such an exchange of population. I hope that Pakistan will treat the unhappy Biharis in Bangladesh, who are suffering now largely as a result of their loyalty —mistaken, I believe, but undoubtedly loyalty—to what was Pakistan as loyal citizens of Pakistan who should be allowed to settle there, in the only country they can regard as their home. I also hope that Pakistan will allow the Bangalees to return to Bangladesh. Then there would be no difficulty, I am sure, in the solution of the problem of the prisoners in India.
The Bill involves technicalities and contains certain nonsenses which I hope will be resolved in Committee. But what is surprising about both Bills is that the Government have talked as though it were in some way a contribution to community relations in this country to produce a substantial number of people who will, we are assured, remain resident in this country, whose rights to continue to live here will be in no way challenged, but who will not have the right to register as citizens and who will have to go through the process of naturalisation before they can be fully secure or exercise rights of citizenship.
In concluding the debate on the Pakistan Bill the Minister completely failed to give any reason for his view that cut-off dates of 30th January and 4th February 1972 for Pakistan and Bangladesh, respectively, were right. He gave no reason for his view, which is expressed in the proposed legislation, that it is in some way beneficial to community relations in this country to have people who are only half-way citizens. I trust that this Bill and the Pakistan Bill will be amended in Committee in order to ensure that that restrictive approach is changed, because I cannot believe that it is healthy for a substantial number of people to live in a country for a long period without full citizenship and without being able to vote.
But these are issues for the Committee. They were fully aired in the pre-

vious debate. I conclude by reiterating my delight that Bangladesh is now becoming a member of the Commonwealth. I am sure that she will become one of the most successful members.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I strongly welcome the Bill. I express my personal satisfaction that the fruits of membership of the Commonwealth will follow from it for Bangladesh. Like my hon. Friends, I have paid two visits to the country in the last year and have been struck by the progress that is being made.
I want to advert briefly to the somewhat unevenhanded way in which the Government have treated the Pakistanis and the Bangalees in the two Bills. It strikes me as somewhat odd that whereas the decision of the Pakistani Government to leave the Commonwealth on a particular date is taken to be the date at which Pakistanis ceased to enjoy the benefits of the British Nationality Acts, the date at which Bangladesh itself considered that it came into existence is not similarly regarded as the date on which the citizens of Bangladesh might reasonably have expected the rights of commonwealth citizenship to flow.
The date at which Bangladesh claims it came into existence as a State is not the date at which the British Government gave de jure recognition, namely, 3rd February 1972. It was much earlier —21st March of the previous year—when the so-called Government in exile made a broadcast declaring independence. That is the date on which the rights of citizens of Bangladesh are determined in Bangladesh law, and it is the date from which the Bangladesh Government have claimed loyalty and from which it has proscribed members of the East Pakistan Government for acts of collaboration with enemy powers in Pakistan.
I shall not go into the merits of the attitude of Bangladesh to that issue, about which I am deeply concerned; I simply draw attention to the somewhat anomalous differences between the Government's treatment of Bangalees and Pakistanis in the respective Bills. Like my hon. Friends and almost everyone else who has spoken, I believe that this must be rectified by the Government in Committee. I profoundly hope that they


will seek to make a fundamental change. particularly in the Pakistan Bill.

Mr. Richard: Perhaps the House will allow me to say that I should not like the suggestion to be placed on record unanswered that officially, as the Opposition, we did not welcome the accession of Bangladesh to the Commonwealth with great warmth and hope for the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has not had the advantage of sitting in on our earlier debate today on the Pakistan Bill. We spent a great deal of time on that Bill on the detail—perhaps unnecessary detail—and intricacies of citizenship and nationality. If I erred, perhaps, in approaching this Bill in a technical and legal way, it was because it seemed to me that we should have approached the Pakistan Bill in an even more technical and legal way than we did.
Concerning the merits of this Bill, I hope that everyone in the House and the country, and in Bangladesh, will realise the warmth, affection and hope with which we greet the Bill and the accession of Bangladesh to the Commonwealth.

Lord Balniel: With the leave of the House, I should like to make some brief remarks in conclusion.
Just as the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) felt himself chided for having dealt with the technicalities of the Bill and not the broader sweep of welcoming the accession of Bangladesh to the Commonwealth, I felt that the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) chided me slightly for also having dealt with technicalities and not with the broader foreign affairs aspects. However, he will appreciate that the Bill has a very narrow purpose. At present Bangladesh citizens enjoy Commonwealth citizenship by virtue of their Pakistan citizenship under Pakistan law. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people who are citizens of Bangladesh under Bangladesh law will possess Commonwealth citizenship.
It is for that reason, and because Her Majesty's Government accorded de jure recognition of Bangladesh as long ago as 4th February 1972 and on 18th April 1972 Bangladesh joined the Commonwealth, that I did not enter into the wider foreign affairs aspects.
From a reading of the debate, I have no doubt that anyone who is interested in the affairs of Bangladesh will recognise that Bangladesh has the good will of this House. That has been expressed in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the hon. Member for Kensington, North and the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition.
We wish Bangladesh's people and territory prosperity and good fortune in the years which lie ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BAHAMAS INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF BRITISH NATIONALITY ACTS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

11.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): Perhaps I should say one or two words about the Bill, which I hope will not be very controversial. Clause 2 makes provisions regarding nationality matters consequent upon independence. Subsection (1) adds the Bahamas to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1 of the British Commonwealth Act 1948. The effect of that is that any Bahamian citizen will also be a British subject or a Commonwealth citizen in our law.
Subsection (2) provides that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies


shall be withdrawn when a person becomes a citizen of the Bahamas on the appointed day, except, of course, those who are covered by the provisions of Clause 3. Subsection (3) withdraws citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from those registered or nationalised who have some other citizenship or nationality. It is hard to say how many people will be involved but the best estimate we can make is an involvement of 600 to 900. I suppose that most of them would be citizens of other Caribbean countries or of the USA. It is to be supposed that such people have not closer links with the United Kingdom than they have with their other country. That is in accordance with our policy of not automatically taking as our citizens those who have no obvious connection with this country.
Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 exclude from our citizenship those who after the appointed day decide to become Bahamian either by naturalisation or by registration. Subsection (6) withdraws from a married woman the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies the right to have citizenship by registration which she could have up to now by virtue of her marriage to a person who will lose citizenship on the appointed day. That provision applies also to widows of those who would have lost their United Kingdom citizenship if they had been alive on the appointed day.
Subsection (7) extends the interpretation of persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by naturalisation to include persons who were at one time given local naturalisation in the Bahamas before the passing of the British Nationality Act 1948.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I thank the Minister for explaining the clause, which is probably the most important clause in the Bill. May I confirm through the hon. Gentleman that, as presaged in the White Paper, the Bahamian are in complete accord with the British Government's view on the contents of the clause?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, indeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP OF UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES BY CERTAIN PERSONS CONNECTED WITH THE BAHAMAS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Kershaw: The purpose of the clause is to indicate that those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a close connection with the United Kingdom shall not lose their United Kingdom citizenship notwithstanding that they have also become citizens of the Bahamas. The classes are described shortly and clearly in Subsections (1) and (2).
Subsection (3) provides that a wife of a United Kingdom citizen shall follow him in any changes which may happen to his citizenship as a consequence of the Bill. Subsection (4) interprets Clause 3 (2)(b) so that reference to father and father's father naturalised in the United Kingdom includes persons who would have been naturalised by the British Nationality Act 1948. That brings the terms of naturalisation on to the same basis as the British Nationality Act 1948, whatever they may have been before that.
Subsection (5) excludes all territories not still colonies or protectorates from the operation of the Bill and all persons registered or naturalised in such territories.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF OTHER ENACTMENTS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Kershaw: It is hardly necessary to say so, but Clause 4 ensures that our legislation does not extend to the Bahamas after independence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

TRANSFER OF COLONIAL LIGHTHOUSES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Kershaw: Clause 5 gives power to the Board of Trade, under whose guardianship the lighthouses are, to transfer to the Bahamas the nine lighthouses in its care. It empowers the Secretary of State to make a financial agreement about that. No expense falls upon our Exchequer.
The General Lighthouse Fund is raised by dues levied on vessels using United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland ports. As these lighthouses are essentially of use to passing shipping rather than to shipping using the ports of the Bahamas, the Bahamas have not hitherto made any contribution. Of course, after independence responsibility will fall upon the Bahamas and they will have to take them over. It has been thought right in the first years to make a contribution towards the expenses, and the clause enables the Board of Trade to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

INTERPRETATION

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 23, after 'Islands', insert:
'other than the islands of Great Abaco and Little Abaco and the circumjacent cays, which are together known as Greater Abaco'.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L, Mallalieu): With it we shall also discuss the following new clause:

New Clause 1

COLONY OF GREATER ABACO

'Greater Abaco as defined in section 6 of this Act shall continue to be a colonial dependency of the Crown under the name of the Colony of Abaco, and shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of any Order in Council which may be made by Her Majesty,

Which may be amended or replaced by any other order in Council made under this section'.

Mr. Bell: The effect of the amendment and the new clause would be to exclude the islands of Abaco from the independence provisions of the Bill and from all the provisions of the Bill, because Clause 6 is a definition clause related to every part of the Bill.
Perhaps I should declare my absence of any financial interest. That may seem an odd thing to do, but I do it because I became associated in a professional capacity with those in the island of Abaco who wish to be excluded from independence and wish their island to remain a Crown Colony. I advised them before the independence talks in December last year, and I appeared for them at those talks. It is right therefore that the Committee should know, as I informed the House on Second Reading, that I had that professional association with them, which might be thought to bias or influence my judgment in the matter. However, I do not think that it has and I believe that I should have taken the same view had I not had that connection. The Committee might well think that is very probable.
The historical background to this is that a few years ago there came into power in the Bahamas the Government of the present Prime Minister which appeared to some, and certainly to many of those living in Abaco, to adopt policies of a hitherto unfamiliar kind, namely policies of a nationalistic and colour-conscious nature. Perhaps in putting it in that way I am guilty of an understatement. It produced a great feeling of unhappiness among the majority of the population of Abaco, and two years ago the majority of the electorate there presented a petition to Her Majesty asking that their island should be excluded from any independence that might be envisaged in the near future.
We in this House know only too well the lack of value of petitions. They should be important and useful things. They are not. That petition went only to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where I have no doubt it was read. The orthodox answer was given that a petition of that kind could be considered only if it came from the elected Government of the island.
I must say in passing that it does not seem to me to be a very useful right of petition to the Crown if it must be by an elected Government. On the whole, Governments do not need to petition the Crown; they have rather different approaches. One thinks of petitions as a remedy for the private citizens collectively to present a memorial to those who govern.
The importance of that petition is that it showed that two years ago, long before the general election in September, a great many people on the island were entertaining that opinion. Needless to say, a counter-petition was got up. I am afraid that under the present régime in the Bahamas one would take it for granted that that would happen. But it was not a very convincing counter-petition.
Then there came the general election last September, in which Mr. Pindling's party won 28 of the seats. The opposition party, which was against independence at this time, won eight of the seats. There was one tie, and there was a further very narrow win which was subject to an election petition which has now been withdrawn. Sixty per cent. voted for the PLP, Mr. Pindling's party, and 40 per cent. against it, so that the majority was only three to two over all, somewhat unevenly distributed among the islands making up the Bahamas.
In the island of Abaco the popular vote was nearly two to one against the present Government party, and therefore against independence. Abaco is the second largest of the 700 islands in the Bahamas. It is 120 miles long and its area is 850 square miles. It has an abundance of fresh water, which is something of a rarity in the Bahamas. It has fertile land, and it has deep water facilities which could be extremely valuable.
All of those things make it peculiarly suitable for standing on its own as a Crown Colony of this country. But the real case for its being treated exceptionally, in the way that the amendment seeks, is the long history of the island. It was uninhabited at the time of the American War of Independence, and, when the British fortunes failed in the contests, those who were most committedly

loyal to the British Crown on the American mainland were taken in British warships with their households and their slaves down to the Bahama islands, and in particular to Abaco. Others went to some of the other Bahama Islands, such as Long Island. The unique characteristic of Abaco was that it was uninhabited and that therefore the British loyalists formed the whole population.
Now, two centuries later, more than 90 per cent. of the whole population of Abaco are descendants of those who came down in British ships in that way to the island. Loyalty to the British connection is the very thing which brought them there. It remains an enduring and lively part of the tradition of that community and it still matters very much to them today that they should remain directly under the governance and protection of the British Crown. It is therefore a matter of great vexation and worse that now, after all that, they face the real risk of separation and alienation from that deep attachment which has been the informing principle of their community.
Living together for that long period of time, they have intermarried across any colour bar. There is a wide range of pigmentation and coloration in that country and there is no antagonism between people of different shades of colour in Abaco.
It is therefore particularly unacceptable to them that they should be in danger of going away from the British connection under a Government, a régime which is very nearly correctly described as a black nationalist government and which certainly is very keenly racially conscious and despises them for their lack of that colour consciousness and has despised them for it explicity in words which I quoted to the House on Second Reading. Perhaps I should now remind the House of them. It was the Deputy Prime Minister, I think, Mr. Hanna, who referred to the people of Abaco as "Uncle Toms and Aunt Chloes" and said that a swift doom would now fall upon their behaviour because the PLP had won and to the victor belonged the glory. That was swiftly said after the election.
By "Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Chloes" the Deputy Prime Minister meant people of colour not animated by


anti-white sentiment—a description which aptly fits the people of Abaco.
That is the background and what one might call the atmosphere of sentiment in which one should look at this matter. Unfortunately, it is not only a matter of loyalty and sentiment. Perhaps I should not say "only" because what is more important than those things when people are defining their political allegiance and boundaries?
Unhappily, the antagonism of the régime in Nassau, New Providence has taken much more concrete forms in the election. On Second Reading I said that I would not hold up the House, when we were debating the general principle, with the particularity of that, but in moving this amendment I should give a little particularity although I shall keep it short as befits the hour. I will give a few quick examples of political victimisation which have followed the election victory in September.
12 midnight
There were three employees of the Ministry of Tourism, all Bahamians and all from Opposition party families. Miss Sandra Carey was promoted at the beginning of September to senior information assistant. The letter of promotion on 6th September said:
This appointment is based on merit.
Three weeks later, she was dismissed and informed by her immediate superior that her dismissal was not connected with her performance of her duties but was the Minister's order. Miss Lynn Thompson was also dismissed on 25th September, and so was Mrs. Armbrister presumably because other members of their families, but not they, had campaigned for the Opposition candidate against Mr. Maynard, the Minister.
Mr. L. E. Sawyer was involved in a particularly striking case. Mr. Sawyer is a Canadian and gave a lift in his aircraft to an FNM supporter—a simple act of friendship normal in the out-islands. He was instantly turned out of the country on the allegation that to give a lift in his aircraft to a member of the Opposition party was interfering in local politics, though no objection was taken by Mr. Pindling's regime to the activities of the American actor Richard Round-tree, who appeared on a PLP platform

on the ground that he wanted to be in on the independence action.
Then there was the dismissal of Mr. Albury, the harbour master in Abaco, for expressing a political opinion in favour of the Opposition party. That might appear harsh in any country; a reprimand might have been justified. But the real significance is that he was at once replaced—this was at election time—by a Government party sympathiser who promptly plastered his van with the party's stickers and campaigned actively throughout the election without objection.
I must stop giving examples at this point. They are only personal cases happening to individuals, but if I were to make a general allegation of victimisation and gave no personal examples, I would be open to criticism for making the kind of allegation which can be made by anybody and is not substantiated by facts—and, of course, victimisation always is of individuals. I have given these examples, but there are others.
Then there is the growth of corruption, to which I also referred on Second Reading. I mention three examples to show that I am not making a general allegation. There was the granting of the Government contract for road construction in Abaco. It was awarded to the Abaco Supply Company, of which a PLP supporter was president, which owned no equipment whatever, not even a wheelbarrow, and which never built anything. Its tender of 30,000 dollars a mile was the highest submitted. It sub-contracted at once to a legitimate road construction company at 20,000 dollars a mile, and pocketed the difference of 10,000 dollars a mile—half the legitimate construction costs for not building anything.
At Mangrove Cay in Andros the unsuccessful aspirants for the PLP nomination were both consoled. One was given a political appointment, which is fair enough, and the other, Arnold Cargill, won the contract for the construction of the 3,000-feet runway at Mangrove Cay with a tender no less than 65,000 dollars above the lowest tender. The work was immediately sub-contracted to the Zince Construction Co. of Florida. A similar situation occurred at Ragged Island, where the unsuccessful lowest bidders were McAlpine's.
I give those examples so that I shall not be thought to be making generalised allegations. It may be asked why—if there is this racially intolerant Government, which practises victimisation after it has won the election, which has this record of corruption—have my representations to the Secretary of State not succeeded and why is it necessary for me to be moving this amendment? Why, when the Division bells ring, will the payroll vote come trooping in to vote it down without having heard any of the debate? The answer has been given by my right hon. Friend during the Second Reading.
First of all he says that there was a general election in September, won by Mr. Pindling. He says that after that election there was a vote in the National Assembly when no one voted against independence. Thirdly, he says that the body of people for whom I appeared in December called the Greater Abaco Council—a splendid name which I thought of myself as an agreeable label for some agreeable people—had withdrawn its opposition. Lastly he says that we cannot have this fragmentation of the Bahamas. Let us examine these points.
Independence was not the sole issue in the general election. It could not be. A general election takes in the lot. A government sometimes try to fight a general election on a single issue but they never succeed. In fairness it must be said that Mr. Pindling did not try very hard to fight it on the independence issue. He fought it on many other things, although independence was certainly mentioned.
I should like to read what a former Governor of the Bahamas has said in a letter to my right hon. Friend about this. I will not name him because I do not have his permission. He said:
Your arguments are, of course, unanswerable except in one respect which is that you base them on the assumption that the will of the people was expressed in the recent elections. I do not think this is so. If you have visited the tiny and widely separated communities in the islands of the Bahamas in which two-thirds of the electorate live, you must appreciate how easy it is to rig elections.
This was done by previous governments.
Add to this that all the ballot papers were numbered so that in the comparatively densely populated New Providence it was easy for the

PLP to intimidate the electorate into voting for them. Add further that a majority of the voters are illiterate and quite ignorant of what independence means and you have the completely bogus result given in the General Election.
That is from a retired Governor. It is an opinion and the Committee does not need to accept it as totally accurate. I think it casts some light on this sort of three-to-two vote allegedly in favour of independence. There is also the question of the vote in the Assembly, when the Member for South Abaco, who certainly did not agree, walked out. He probably would have been wiser to stay and vote because then my right hon. Friend would not be able to say that there was no dissident vote. In some of these colonial legislatures walking out is one of the techniques. It has been practised rather extensively in the Bahamas Legislature.
The attitude of the Opposition party, on which, again, I think my hon. Friend relied, was certaintly not of accepting independence in the sense of agreeing with it, but what their leaders said was, "We do not want it, but we have lost the election and a responsible Opposition has to accept the verdict of the electorate." That is the background to why there was not a formal division against independence in the Assembly.
Next there is the business of the Greater Abaco Council. I think two or three people who belonged to it—and, after all, it represented I suppose a couple of thousand people—went to Mr. Pindling and said they no longer opposed independence for Abaco. The only comment I make on that, and I know that my hon. Friends will not take it too much amiss, is that I find it very depressing that he—indeed any Minister —should find reassuring just that oppression and breaking down of individuals which are the very reasons why the people of Abaca do not want to be caught in this trap and why I and some of my hon. Friends who could be somewhere else—perhaps in bed—are here pleading their cause tonight. All too many people now in the Bahamas, with independence approaching rather less than two months away, no longer dare to stand up and argue with Mr. Pindling.
In any case if my hon. Friend thinks, or has ever thought, that perhaps we


speak for only a small number of these people, since this Bill was published, within the compass of a week the people in Abaca who wish it to remain a Crown Colony attached to Britain have whipped round and got a new petition. In a week, in an island 120 miles long, they have obtained the signatures of more than half the number of those who voted in the General Election in September, and of course there are more names to come in.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend can tell us what is the population of Abaca and how it compares with that of the Bahamas as a whole?

Mr. Bell: The population of Abaca is 6,500 and that is approximately 4 percent. of the total in the inhabited islands. The number of votes cast in the General Election was 2,236 and this petition was signed by 1,700. Although it must be said that some of those are Abaconians at present living in New Providence, the number of registered electors who have signed it is already more than half the total of those who voted in the General Election. This was done in a week, and there are many signatures still to come in. I am told that in the same period there has been an attempt to run a counter-petition with all the persuasion of a nationalist Government behind it and up to date they have got only 40 signatures. I think I may legitimately claim that I am speaking for the majority of the inhabitants of the island.
It would be wrong at this late hour to read even the prayer of the petition, but perhaps the Committee will be good enough to take it from me that it repeats the arguments I have made about the long attachment of approximately 300 years to the Crown—
we and our forebears have been dutiful adherents to the Crown. We are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and earnestly desire to remain such
—and more to the same effect.
12.15 a.m.
Lastly, there is the argument about fragmentation. I concede that some in the Department would regard this as a compelling argument because adminis

trative tidiness is very attractive to those who deal in such matters. My comments are as follows. I should like first to deal with the question of "archipelagisation". There is a belief that an archipelago is a natural political unit, but the history of the recent past appears to go against that view. One may get away with an archipelago in Indonesia where there is a group of totally dominant islands, although Indonesia has had a troubled history as an archipelago State and it is too soon to say whether it will survive as one. But the present case would embrace an archipelago State of 40 inhabited islands with other uninhabited islands stretching over 700 miles of ocean. The nearest point on Abaco to New Providence is 52 sea miles away. Therefore, it is artificial to say that the second largest island cannot be on its own just because it wants to be a Crown Colony.
Abaco is the most northerly of the Bahamas, and if we take the most southerly of the Bahamas we find that it is a separate Crown colony. I refer to Turks and Caicos which geographically are as much a part of the Bahamas as is Abaco.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am interested in the geography of the matter because I have done some research since the Second Reading debate. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the vast majority of the Greater Abaco is nearer to Nassau than to the Greater Bahama island?

Mr. Bell: Yes, the starting point is undoubtedly closer to New Providence than to Grand Bahama. The northern part is equally further away from Great Bahama. One cannot have too much fine adjustment on these geographical points. I am merely seeking to meet the point about fragmenting the archipelago. I am merely pointing out that the corresponding group of islands—because Abaco is a group of islands—is a separate Crown Colony. I do not know the population of Turks and Caicos, but it would not surprise me if it were much less than that of Abaco.

Mr. Chapman: Much less.

Mr. Bell: I am interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney


Chapman) that it is much less. Abaco is not 40 times as large as New Providence, as I said on Second Reading, but is only 10 times as large, and it is many times as large as Bermuda, which is a separate Crown colony. Therefore, arguments based on administrative tidiness and fragmenting the Bahamas are nonsense. One should not take any step in this area without deploying strong reasons for so doing, and I cannot think of a much stronger reason than this centuries-old bond which has been so vehemently expressed and the feeling of desolation and abandonment which is gripping the inhabitants of these islands at this time.
I wish to read to the Committee another comment by another and more recent ex-Governor of the Bahamas, who said:
I have much sympathy"—

Lord Balniel: My hon. and learned Friend makes matters very difficult when he quotes from letters and we do not know their source. I appreciate that he does not wish to disclose the name of the ex-Governor concerned, but am I right in thinking that the person concerned—who I am sure is a very distinguished person —was Governor about 15 years ago in the Bahamas?

Mr. Bell: I think that my right hon. Friend is correct about the first quotation that I read. The one that I am now reading was said by a more recent ex-Governor of the Bahamas. He said:
I have much sympathy with…all the Bahamians who oppose the present corrupt and racist régime, the incompetence of which is matched only by its lack of principle.
Those are strong words from an ex-Governor, and they help to explain the sentiments which are felt by the inhabitants of this island who will be totally at the mercy of this régime in a way in which we in this Chamber are not and never shall be. We have no right to take a detached and generalised view about such a subject.
It has been said, in good faith, that there are safeguards in the new constitution. We have not yet seen it, but we have seen a White Paper giving its outline. We are told that there will be built-in safeguards so that personal rights are guaranteed, and changes can be made

only by certain procedures. That is true, of course. Safeguards have been built into all colonial independence constitutions. These, in their form, go further than other constitutions do. But we have also seen that very few of these constitutions survive. It is not very long before we have a one-party State. It is said, "One man, one vote, one election," and after that the people are exposed to the tender mercies of those in power.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I make a further quotation. This is from the ex-Governor whom I first quoted. He said:
I feel I must make one further comment …which is that if it is thought that the fact that fundamental rights will be subject to enforcement by the Supreme Court of the Bahamas will have any meaning for the present Government of the Bahamas, you
—my right hon. Friend—
are deceiving yourself.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend is deceiving himself, because he pointed out on Second Reading that, once they are independent, they are independent. We all know what some of these newly-independent States do. But the fact is that these safeguards are an illusory protection if the will to oppress is there, because the power to oppress is there.
I conclude with these words, which were spoken during the independence talks by a young coloured Bahamian. He said:
Yes. Those of us who are white
—that did not include him—
and oppose the Government have been referred to as racists and colonialists who want to dominate the black races for ever, and those of us who are black and oppose the Government are referred to as Uncle Toms and traitors to our black brothers. All this because we believe in racial harmony, have lived that way for years, and are not now prepared to identify with a country which is embarking on a mad campaign of a destructive and almost fanatical black nationalism which can only succeed in adding more human atrocities to the world. And as the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Hanna, has said at his party's convention on October 27th 1972, 'To all the Uncle Toms, your days are numbered; a doom swift and terrible is upon your behaviour, for we have overcome you and to the victor goes the glory.' How can we ever hope to live as equal citizens under those conditions? How can we ever expect to become an integral part of an independent Bahamas when we are despised as traitors by


a vindictive Government when all we did was to exercise our freedom of choice and choose to remain loyal to the British Crown?

Mr. Robert Maclennan: When the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) quoted the remarks of the vice-premier of the Bahamas, I was reminded of the remarks made shortly after the Labour Party won the General Election in 1945 by a gentleman who at the time occupied the Front Bench. He said "We are the masters now." Perhaps some people's blood ran cold when they heard that, but equally the passage of time has given Lord Shawcross a somewhat less menacing appearance than he may have had then. Indeed, if remarks of that kind were made in the Bahamas— [Interruption.] I take the point: look at what happened to Lord Shawcross.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I may be wrong, but my recollection is that Lord Shaw-cross never threw the Mace out of the window. Is that right?

Mr. Maclennan: My recollection is that more recent threats upon the Mace were equally undisturbing to the equanimity of this place.
In the excitement of an election of the kind that took place in the Bahamas last year it is natural that statements should be made which might be regretted later, but upon which it would be unwise for us to build an image of an intention to oppress the minority.
There were a number of points in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that we would do well to look at. I do not feel that he has fully discharged the burden of proof that either the separation of Abaco from the Bahamas is logical and necessary for geographical reasons or that it is what the people want.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the geographical fact of the archipelago of the Bahamas being stretched across 700 miles of ocean as though this were in some way almost sufficient to demonstrate the unlikelihood of this new nation cohering. These British Isles belong to an archipelago of islands which stretch across about 700 miles, and there are groups of islands contiguous to my constituency with populations not so different

from the population of the island of Abaco, but they do not suggest that it is impossible for them to belong to the United Kingdom. Of course, they sometimes feel that their interests are not noticed or that they are discriminated against economically by the Government, but there is no geographical impossibility in their belonging to the United Kingdom.
Indeed, the very fact of history, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman placed so much importance in the earlier part of his speech, gives the lie to geographical arguments. The fact is that for 200 years these islands have cohered politically and administratively.
12.30 a.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of the island of Abaco having been descended from expatriate British loyalists. I do not deny that, but they are descended from many other people, including slaves from West Africa. The races are very intermixed. They have that in common with other Bahamian citizens with whom they are about to embark on the new experiment of independent nationhood.
The hon. and learned Gentleman had a heavy task to discharge if he intended to satisfy the House that the will of the people of the Bahamas had not been expressed clearly in the election last September. First he said that Mr. Pindling had wrapped up the issues in the election so that it was not clear that it was all about independence. Then he relied on the fact that in the island of Abaco a majority had voted against Mr. Pindling to suggest that they thought that they were voting against independence.
The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either people thought that they were voting for independence or they did not. It is clear that the majority, in supporting the Government of Mr. Pindling, recognised that they were voting for independence and that the issue which divided the parties was not the fact of independence but simply its timing. The attitude of the Opposition, who would have preferred a more protracted progress to independence, in accepting the outcome of the constitutional conference, is consistent with that interpretation.
We have to recognise—we have had experience enough of it—that micro-States are not truly capable of genuine independence. The Bahamas are a small enough country in all conscience.

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: When the hon. Gentleman talks of micro-States, does he have in mind macro-States like India and Palestine, for example?

Mr. Maclennan: When I spoke of micro-States, I was thinking of States which are recognised as such—mostly oceanic States like the islands of Polynesia and the Maldive Island and others—which have all acquired independence, to which their geographical position means that there is no alternative. They are not strong States and are bound up with their neighbours even when they are far-flung.
The problem for a small island the size of Abaco if it is left on its own is that it will undoubtedly be dominated by others. It is inconceivable that, with a population of 6,500, it could live a wholly independent existence. It is equally inconceivable that it would wish indefinitely to remain a Crown Colony. That has not been the pattern of the other micro-States, which have all eventually recognised the desire for, and the advantages of, independence. The Minister's argument on Second Reading against fragmentation was an ineluctable one and had great strength.
While one sympathises with those who do not share the satisfaction of the majority of the people of the Bahamas at their achievement of independence, one must recognise that the voice of the people spoke clearly in the election and afterwards in the resolution of the Parliament.
The hon. and learned Member has referred to the history of the Bahamas. They have a long parliamentary tradition—200 years. We in this Parliament should respect and listen to the voice of the Parliament of the Bahamas and reject the hon. and learned Member's move to fracture the newly-independent State

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: At this very late hour I must be brief. Most of the relevant points were covered in

the Second Reading debate, but at this closing stage in Committee I want to stress my support for the amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has carried out a deep analysis of this problem and, unlike most of us, he has been to Abaco and he knows the problem on the ground.
I judge this question in terms of loyalty. The Abaconians have shown by their gesture and attitude a loyalty towards the Crown, and there is a clash on the question of disengagement. It may not suit the Government to accept that there is a clash on that question. but it exists. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would agree with that.
Secondly, the Government must concentrate on a bit of quick thinking, because the international media are taking an interest in the problem of Abaco and we may find that this change will become a dominant factor between now and 10th July. I hope so, at any rate.
Thirdly, I want to stress the importance of accuracy. What is happening in the Bahamas? Are we being led astray by the belief that the Bahamas are moving towards the peaceful Utopia type of British concept when the Government hope to get rid of one more of our colonial dependencies, or is there arising in the Bahamas a sort of black Mafia situation? I do not know, and I should like to hear the Government's answer to that question.
Fourthly, on an important question of common sense, I feel that most hon. Members who spoke in the Second Reading debate took the view that there was a situation in the Bahamas of "A prés moi la deluge"—to quote in my miserable French as an anti-European.
All I ask, in closing this 60-second speech—because it is not worth going on longer at this time of night—is fair play for Abaco. We must ensure justice, and I believe that the amendment supports that aim.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice): Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must appreciate that the Government are in a very difficult position after the vote in the Bahamas Parliament. The trouble is that Governments listen to evidence adduced by people like my hon. And


learned Friend the Member for Bucking hamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) only when there is violence, as in the case of Anguilla. I believe that there has been clear evidence of corruption in the general election and that it should be thoroughly investigated. I do not believe that it has been. There is clear evidence of deliberate discrimination, as pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend. I therefore believe that there is a case for Abaco's remaining a Crown Colony.
It is clear that we shall not get that yet, but I believe that we have not seen the end of this story. I believe, therefore, that it is necessary to have a vote tonight, and that we shall have to return to the problem at a later date.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I dare to intervene in the Committee stage of this important Bill only because I listened to the whole of the Second Reading debate last week, making only a short intervention in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to ask for details about Abaco.
After much heart searching I feel I must resist the amendment and the new clause, though I was deeply moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees- Davies) on Second Reading, although I did not agree with all he said, and by the eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. South and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell).
However, having listened very carefully to the Second Reading debate, I did some research on this matter, because it is a grave subject upon which we have to deliberate before reaching a decision. I cannot accept the gist of the amendment and the new clause which says, in effect, the Greater Abaco should be regarded as separate from the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
It is important to recognise that however many islands there may be in what we call the Grand Bahamas, at least 30 are inhabited. These 30 make up a total population of almost 170,000 people, and they cover over 5,000 square miles. It is important to realise that the Bahamas as we know them consist first of

New Providence, which is one of the smaller islands but has by far the greatest population and includes the capital city, Nassau. The population is about 100,000. Then there is Grand Bahama Island with a population of about 26,000. Andros has a population of nearly 9,000. Then comes Abaco with a population of 6,500. Eleuthera has about the same population. There are many other islands. Long Island has a population of 3,900. Exuma's population is 3,750. Harbour Island and Spanish Wells, Cat Island, Bimini and Inagua have populations of over 1,000, and about 20 other islands have populations below 1,000.
I hope that I am not boring the Committee. Detailing these populations gives some idea of the complexity and comprehensiveness of what we call the Grand Bahama islands.
Geographically, Greater Abaco and Little Abaco are east of Grand Bahama Island. They are much further away than is Grand Bahama Island from the coast of Florida. When talking about separation of Abaco, one is talking very much about a group of islands which would physically and geographically be out on a limb. Abaco has absolutely no sense of affinity with any land or islands other than what we call the Bahamas islands, of which it is at present a part. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South has said, Greater Abaco and Little Abaco and the circumjacent islands have a population of 6,500, which is less than 4 per cent. of the total population of the Grand Bahamas.
Although it is not a conclusive point, when one is considering the separation of Abaco, and forgetting for a moment—although I do not want to forget it entirely—the historical context, one should remember that many islands in the Grand Bahamas have a much greater claim than the Abaco islands to separation from the new independent State that it is proposed to set up. One example in Andros, with a population of nearly 9,000. Not only has Andros a greater population than Abaco but it is greater in area than Grand Bahama Island, New Providence and Abaco added together.
Although it may be true academically that the extreme north of the Abaco islands is further way from Nassau and New Providence than is Grand Bahama


Island, which is the second largest populated island of the Grand Bahamas, the vast majority of Abaco is much nearer to the capital city than is the Grand Bahama Island. Therefore, from a geographical and population point of view, I consider from my researches that there is no case to be made for treating these islands as separate from the Grand Bahamas.
12.45 a.m.
After one has studied the local political history, the fears of some of my hon. Friends can be understood only too well. According to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South a recent poll, which apparently is not complete because some of the outer islands have yet to report, shows that a majority of the people who live on Abaco would like to secede from the independent Commonwealth country.
But we must return to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that a democratic vote has been taken. There may be a majority of only 60 to 40, but some of us in our less arrogant moments might be satisfied if we have a majority at the next General Election of 60 to 40 per cent. There is no doubt that a democratic vote was taken at an appropriate time and that a majority of the people on what have always been regarded as the Grand Bahamas islands voted for the independence of their country.
There are three points I wish to make on the political aspect. First, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, as it is now called, has been, in effect, self-governing with cabinet responsibility since January 1964, and when we talk about internal self-government, we should remember that that was by universal adult suffrage. At any rate, people over 18 have had the right to vote since 1959, and Abaco has been part of that self-government.
Secondly, every hon. Member must recognise and consider recent enfranchisement of colonies as part of the Commonwealth. We must accept that there have been abuses. Somebody said that there is perhaps one thing worse than one man, one vote, and that is one man and no vote. We have only to look at the

recent histories of some of the recently independent countries of the old British Empire to realise that.
There have, of course, been abuses of the system. If independence is granted in a real sense, there is nothing we can do about it. However, I believe that the situation in 1973 is somewhat different from the situation in the 1950s and 1960s. World opinion and public opinion count for more today and influence nations much more than might have been the situation 10 or 20 years ago. I cannot prove that but I believe it to be the case. Perhaps the speeches and the counsels made on Second Reading and in Committee will cause Mr. Pindling to be very wary of abusing the power that might fall to him or his successors.
Thirdly, if Abaco and its attendant islands were allowed to secede from this independent Commonwealth country, although they would remain for the time being a Crown colony, that would not, I believe, be a permanent status. I think that the opportunities for the island to be abused would be much greater than if it played its part, as it has done successfully for the last nine years, as part of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
Of course, we all have worries and it would be stupid to pretend that we do not, but the weight of the evidence and the balance of counsels must come down traditionally, historically, physically, geographically and, let us hope, politically in favour of giving the Bill a Committee stage and seeing that this relatively small and new member, as an independent country of the Commonwealth with less than 170,000 people will have a part to play as an entity not only in trying to promote its own standard of living but in living in peace and harmony with the other countries in that part of the world.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about an archipelago. Has he considered what would happen if this country decided to take over the Isle of Man or Guernsey or Jersey? Does he imagine that the Manx people would like it particularly if we decided that they were a part of our archipelago, or that the people of Guernsey, Jersey or Sark


would like it if they were suddenly to be taken into our part of Britain? The islands of Abaco want to remain a colony. They are in a large and far-flung archipelago. They cover an area of 120 miles in length and include 6,500 people in a colony which could develop very successfully on its own. We can disregard the island of Andros, which is populated by a number of black people and is largely an area of swamp.
The people of Abaco have their own self-sufficiency and, although they are small in number, they could develop. The Grand Bahamas represent a bastard situation which was produced by a number of developers largely for their own benefit. There are a large number of people there because of the vast amount of money flowing from Miami into the casino and other operations in that area. It is an area where one could make a large amount of money financed largely by American money, and it is a part of the world which will shortly be taken over and dominated by large-scale American finance in association with the new Government.
This is not an issue of counting heads. There are plenty more heads in Nassau, but none of the heads has a particularly racist background. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland rightly said, many of the coloured people in that island have descended from slaves. They live in an attractive place, but it was the British people who developed it as one of the finest tourist complexes. Now we are to put it into the hands of people who are totally unsuited to govern it. This is not a nation and it should not be made into one. It is far too small. It is a series of islands that should have remained under the British Crown. Having taken a wrong decision in that direction, we do not have to take another wrong decision by imposing on a perfectly good colony what it does not want.
As for the poppycock about a democratic vote, it is not a democratic vote for the people in Nassau to vote one way in order to dominate a tiny place miles away which does not want to participate. If the people of Abaco had shown by a majority that they wanted to join in with Nassau, that would have been a different matter. If the people

of the Grand Bahamas want to join in Bill—and they do—with Mr. Pindling, good luck to them; that is their misfortune. But the fact is that each of these islands could have been separate, as the Turks and Caicos islands are separate.
It is said that there are a number of areas where there are small islands which should remain separate. We must consider Bermuda, which is a small island. If we set the seal on the Bill tonight, we may find a breakaway crowd who want to try to bring that to nationhood. What shall we say there? Shall we have Bermuda next in line?
The point is that no democratic vote taken in Nassau can bind Abaco, any more than a vote taken in London can bind the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man happens to be an offshore island from Britain, but we are not entitled to say that we intend to take it over. The people of Abaco are not the people of Nassau. Equally, the people of the Grand Bahama Island are not the people of Nassau. They are totally independent.
Those in control in Nassau, like Pindling himself as a Jamaican, are a number of different people who together are entitled to speak for Nassau. They are not entitled to speak for other islands over which they have no say—or should not. There may be a few very small islands scattered around with so few people in them that they can have a say.
The real issue is whether these people are so far away and so independent that they have the entitlement to come to the Queen and express their own opinion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who has made a deep study of the matter, has pointed out that the overwhelming proportion of them do not want to join. Are they such an integral part of Nassau that we must compel them to join in what Nassau believes to be right? I do not think so. That is the real issue that we must decide.
If we decide to force them against their will to join Nassau and come under its control, we can do so only if we feel that that will be a benevolent control wisely and properly exercised. I do not believe that for one moment, nor does anyone who knows that part of the world. We cannot trust the present men in control.
They will in due course relieve the existing British citizens of control. There is nothing in the Bill that will stop them from doing it. I am not sure that we have any right to criticise the present Government in that regard. I do not think that nationalisation of land can be stopped, or that development and planning that are totally against the interests of the people who control the main estates in Nassau can be stopped. But certainly a number of British people concerned with the development of that part of the world are afraid of the future development in that part of the Caribbean.
Whether or not the elections were properly conducted—and I certainly do not know—is not really the issue, save only whether they were fairly conducted as reflecting the opinion of the people in Abaco. I accept that the people in Andros wanted to go with the Bahamas and that the people in Grand Bahama so voted. They are not the people who concern us tonight.
We must consider fairly and independently the situation of the small island of Abaco. We must also recognise that nowadays small islands develop very fast, particularly in the Caribbean. A population of 6,500 now could well be 65,000 in 10 years' time. They have plenty of room and a good island which can be properly and effectively developed.
If we turn down this opportunity, those people may well be taken over and their future development will rest not in what they believe to be right and what they believe is best for them, but in what the Government in Nassau believe to be best for them.
1.0 a.m.
When one is dealing with a large number of islands, one is not dealing with a close, tightly-knit group as in Britain, France or any other nation. That is why I keep on coming back to the question: what really constitutes a nation? I do not believe—and this is why I am fundamentally in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South—that one can make a nation out of 100,000 people.
I do not suppose that the people of Caithness would like it much if the Isle of Thanet took them over, but there we

have a population every bit as big as that of Nassau and Grand Bahama combined. If we proposed that they should operate under our control because we happen to have a population of 150,000 people, I think the Scots would be profoundly upset. Scots and people in the Hebrides recognise this type of argument.
It is a pity we have gone ahead with this independence but, if we have to, let us try to give the people in Abaco a chance to obtain their independence. Nothing would be more attractive and desirable than if we were proved to be wrong and in a few years' time the people of Abaco were to come to us and say "We are happy about the way Nassau has developed, about the way Grand Bahama has developed, and we feel that it would be wise to join them." There would be no opposition whatever. We could then, with good will, say that our fears were wrong, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and I would be the first to say that we were delighted to be proved wrong.
These fears expressed today are expressed by many others. I cannot give the names of the developers who feel as I do but they are there and are well-known in this country. They feel that the rather dramatic and emotional views I was expressing the other day are not so wide of the mark. It was perhaps overstated to a degree, because late at night one tends to overstate to a degree when putting this kind of thing across. I regret that, because in certain things, and in saying that the Government had not dealt with the matter openly, I was probably quite wrong, but that does not prevent any appealing now to the Government to reserve this issue.
I hope the Minister will say that he will look again at the matter and not pressurise the people of Abaco into this situation at present but will go to Mr. Pindling, who I understand is worried about the feeling on the matter in this House, and say to him "Why not reserve this, leave it for a while and, if you are able to establish a good case, come back on it in three years' time, when the matter has been established?". It would not mean much to him but it would mean a lot to relatively few people who can continue successfully in the years head.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will forgive me if I do not take up immediately what has been said.
I hope one does not have to hold one's head in shame while one mentions a little group of people, only a few thousand, who are keen to maintain their present contact with the British Crown.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) was mistaken when he talked about secession. There is no question of secession. The Government are doing something in the Bill which will affect the people of all the Bahamas. A certain number of them do not want to be affected in that way, so my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) is trying to get them out of it.
I take a view rather different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet. He hopes that the Government will change their mind. I think the Government are waiting to have their mind changed for them. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was waiting for this debate so that he could know how strong the feeling was on the part of those of us who take the case of the people of Abaco. He has the interests of democracy at heart. We use that term rather freely in this House without really thinking what it is about. We have heard about a democratic decision which has been taken. But everything we have heard tonight from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet shows that there is no question of a nice, tight and cosy little democracy having been formed because of a vote a few weeks ago. Everyone knows that that is nonsense—unless both my hon. Friends are wrong, which I doubt. I doubt, too, whether the excerpts from letters by two former Governors were wrong, ill-informed or stupid.
It surely is not beyond the wit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who has done such wonderful things for the country, to find a way out for the people of Abaco—at least, I hope it is not. I

hope that after this demonstration tonight quite a number of hon. Members will support the amendment in the Lobby and that afterwards perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will use the time to give further thought to this very long but lightly-populated island of Abaco.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Committee is about ready for the Minister of State to address himself to the points raised in this interesting and essential debate. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) spoke very much on the lines he took on Second Reading. He dealt with the matter in very much the same way, in a sincere mood and in temperate tones, and at times most powerfully.
Everyone shares with the hon and learned Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) a feeling for the attitude which a majority of the people of Abaco have. No one in this House would be immune from sympathy with the attitude of that section of the population. But the point is how one defines a nation, especially at a time when a constitutional change is necessary to be made. In this case, leaving aside the geographical assessment and the argument about what constitutes an archipelago, there is surely an historical basis for treating the Bahamas as an established political entity over two to three centuries at least.
The Abacos are part of that political entity, having been represented in the House of Assembly since 1784. That is the situation from which any Government would have to proceed. As for denying to an aspirant Crown Colony or associated State, as this was, the right to proceed in independence in its own way, I do not think that that is a dictum which anyone could long uphold.
The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet may not like the present Government in the Bahamas. Possibly no one in this Committee would like everything they have done or are likely to do. Possibly no one in the Bahamas would like everything the British Government have done or are likely to do. Independence is independence, and the Bahamas, like other States which have achieved this status by negotiation and agreement, must


be allowed to use that independence in the way it sees fit.
Through the many thoughtful speeches, in particular that by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), this debate has stated the will and feeling of the Committee and, I think, of the British people. As independence is given freely to this State, the latest in a long series of colonies to be granted independence, we state our profound hope—and it can be no more than that—that as a member of the Commonwealth, which it has chosen to remain, subject to the same Monarch, it will uphold the tradition of parliamentary democracy and the equality of all citizens under the law. This is a hope expressed by Britain as a member of the same Commonwealth.
I cannot fault the Government on what they have done. The White Paper shows that they have followed the proper and necessary procedure of considering carefully all the relevant views held in the Bahamas, in the accepted political entity applying for independence. I have no doubt but that the points put by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South and others about the reservations felt by the majority in the Abacos islands have been weighed and considered carefully by the Government in the period leading up to the conference, during that conference and during the drafting of the White Paper, the contents of which are now being given effect to in this clause.
It is not only the views of two-thirds, or 6,500 people, of those living on the Abacos which have to be taken into account. The Government have to take into account the fact that a general election yielded a substantial majority, 60 per cent., in favour of indepedence now. That election was fought on that issue. It was not subsumed in a welter of other issues. This was the outstanding question on which the people of the Bahamas voted. In the islands which are the subject on the amendment, Mr. Pindling's party contrived to win one of the two seats, using a voting system identical to our own. Unless we suddenly prescribe for the Bahamas the single transferable vote or some form of proportional representation which we do not practice our-

selves, we must accept that with a first-past-the-post system of voting their decision is as conclusive and as valid as ours in any election since the war.
1.15 a.m.
It is, of course, very attractive to argue that one cannot bundle a small minority of people who feel strongly about attachment into a new system because they are only 4 per cent. of the whole, but we must think beyond that to whether it is not equally relevant, once having granted that argument for one-third of the islanders of the Abacos who by the same token passionately want to join in the independence which is now being given, that we should equally apply the argument that, as the Abacos should be given separate treatment, the very substantial minority within the Abacos should in turn have separate treatment. Where does one stop?
I have no time to deal with the fascinating but, I think, somewhat misleading analogies which the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet produced. He spoke about a remote part of Scotland being dominated by Thanet. Surely the true analogy would be of an island off Scotland being dominated by the rest of the United Kingdom, or an island off Wales—we have many—being dominated by this House.
I think this debate will prove very valuable to the new State as it commences this new phase in its history. Enough has been said, very sincerely, by hon. Members on both sides of the House to indicate to this new sister State in the Commonwealth to which we all belong about our hopes and expectations for it. These people have a long history of parliamentary democracy, almost comparable in length and probably in nature to ours. It is our fervant wish that, as they move into independence, the feelings as well as the interests and rights of the people of the Abacos, equally with those of every part of the new Bahaman State, will be strictly, fairly and fully born in mind by the new Bahamian Government.

1.18 a.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I am afraid that inevitably, as we debated this matter at considerable length during Second Reading, the remarks which I make, and indeed those which have been


made by other hon. Members, tend to be slightly repetitious.
I begin by saying that, as so often happens in this House, although I might disagree with the conclusions reached by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and his colleagues who supported his argument, I was impressed by the way, as I expected he would, he developed his argument. He and his colleagues developed their arguments with conviction and in a temperate and, I believe, constructive way. Certainly they have expressed the deep sense of concern which animates them while we discuss this subject. I am sure, however, that they for their part will agree that the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), expressing a different view but equally reflecting the worries which exist in the minds of all hon. Members, were of value to this debate.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South spoke of the safeguards built into the constitution, but thought that to some extent they were illusory. When a country takes a step towards independence, there are worries in people's minds and, therefore, I can fully understand the worry in the minds of some of my hon. Friends. We have also to accept the fact that, when a country moves to independence, responsibility passes to other hands which may or may not conduct affairs wisely. I am sure that in old colonial times when Britain had responsibility in these matters our affairs in the Bahamas were sometimes conducted wisely; equally I am sure that there were occasions when, in retrospect, we feel that they were not as wisely handled as they could have been.
Bahamas has had full internal ministerial self-government since 1964. My hon. and learned Friend may not particularly like that Government, but it has been British policy since 1964 to entrust the internal affairs to the indigenous people who live in the islands which make up the Bahamas. Our sole responsibility, beyond the ultimate sovereign

responsibility of our Parliament here, lies in defence and external affairs. Whether we in this House approve or disapprove of the actions of Mr. Pindling's Government, it is clear that they have the support of the population of the Bahamas. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, we must at least respect the express wishes of the people of the Bahamas and their Parliament. It is fundamental to this debate that they are the elected representatives of those who live there.

Mr. Wall: My right hon. Friend is dealing with a very important point. Is he satisfied that the view of the people was fairly expressed at the general election, that that election was run on reasonably democratic lines and that pressures were not applied and, indeed, are not being applied to the people of Abaco at the moment? This is a key point.

Lord Balniel: No evidence has been adduced to convince me that the elections do not reflect the views of the people. I have no evidence to this effect. But I know that in the election held in September 1972 the Government party campaigned on a platform of early independence. This may not have been the sole issue in the election but it was a major issue. The Government party won the election with 29 out of the 38 seats in the Assembly, or 60 per cent. of votes cast. Abaco has two Members of Parliament. One Member, Mr. Bootle, who represents Coopers Town, wrote to me on 18th May saying that he disagreed with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. The other Member of Parliament is Mr. Watkins, a member of the Free National Movement, and he represents Marsh Harbour.
The governing party in the House of Assembly and the Opposition party both regard Abaco as an integral part of the Bahamas. There is no major political party in the Bahamas which supports the idea of Abaco seceding. The Government and the Opposition were both represented at the independence conference. Both had the full opportunity of deploying their arguments and, at the end, both were able unanimously to agree to the conference report, which is the basis of a constitution for the independ of the Bahamas.
From the British point of view, Abaco has been a part of the Bahamas for 200 years. We have always treated it as a part of the Bahamas. We have administered it as such, and we have governed it as an integral part of the whole.
The Bahamians want independence. A resolution was passed last year in both Houses of the Bahamian Parliament without a dissenting vote asking that independence should be granted.
I turn to the geographical argument that Abaco has some kind of claim to special treatment because it is 50 miles away from Nassau, the capital of the Bahamas. With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, the argument is absurd. The Bahamas consists of 700 islands and atolls. Of these, 22 are inhabited, and many of them are much further away from Nassau than are the islands of Abaco. Nor, incidentally, is Abaco a single island. I am told that it consists of some 16 islands and cays, all of which are to some extent inhabited. This grouping of islands is divided into two constituencies, one of them represented by a PLP Member and one by an Opposition Member. The logic of my hon. and learned Friend's argument is that if we are specifically to represent the views of a certain area, inexorably it will lead to the Abaco islands being split into two for the purposes of the constitution.
I repeat my general argument that the greatest need in the Caribbean is not for a further fragmentation. This is one of the worries existing in the Caribbean area. The greater need is for cohesion. The idea of fragmenting the Bahamas, which for more than 200 years have been administered as an integral constitutional unit and one which has had internal ministerial self-government since 1964, and of taking these 16 separate islands and creating a new Crown Colony against the wishes of a substantial body of their 2,286 voters seems to be unwise.
This debate has emphasised the value of the Government of the Bahamas going out of their way to secure cohesion of the Bahamas by good will and by seeking the support of the people in all the islands. This is one of the beneficial effects of the debate.
1.30 a.m.
I must continue with the argument. The population of Abaco is only about 3 per cent. of the total population of the Bahamas.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Four per cent.

Lord Balniel: I am told that it is about 3 per cent.

Mr. Bell: It is 3·9 per cent.

Lord Balniel: If I am mistaken, I apologise. The percentage of supporters of secession must be substantially smaller than that percentage which I gave or the percentage given by my hon. and learned Friend. It is misleading to suggest that Abaconians unanimously want the continuation of colonial status.
In the 1972 election more than one-third of the Abaco voters voted for the present governing party, which campaigned for early independence. By very definition, more than one-third of the people living in the islands are opposed to the suggestion of secession which is being put forward.
I turn now to the argument I developed before, contradicted by my hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading, that there has been a change of heart among some people previously associated with the secessionist movement. My hon. and learned Friend invented the name for this self-appointed group. There is nothing wrong with a self-appointed group to represent a viewpoint. The name invented by my hon. and learned Friend, the Greater Abaco Council, is a very fine one. The Greater Abaco Council sent a delegation of seven people, I think it was, to London last year to plead the secessionist cause. One of the delegation's leaders, Mr. Leonard Thompson, and three other members of the council held a meeting with the Bahamas Prime Minister on 19th March and said that they, on behalf of the majority of people in Abaco, wished to be actively associated with the changes which were about to take place in the Bahamas.
On 26th April the council issued a Press statement to the effect that, having failed
in this legitimate exploration of the possibility of separation ",
they were now persuaded that
their duty is to work for the success of an independent and prosperous Bahamas.


My hon. and learned Friend referred to an earlier petition in 1971 urging secession. In 1971, 20 Abaconians presented a petition to the then governor seeking secession in the event of independence. Again, a number of these seem to have changed their minds. For instance, I am told that working on the committees which are actually organising the independence celebrations are Mr. Stratton, who was a most leading member of that petition, and Mr. Leonard Thompson, whom I have mentioned. They are both working for the Marsh Harbour Independence Committee for the independence celebrations. Mr. Cecil Mills, another of the eminent signatories, is also now supporting the views of the Bahamas Government. In fact, he is in London at this moment accompanying the Bahamas Prime Minister on his visit with the very purpose of emphasising the undesirability of Abaco seceding.

Mr. Ronald Bell: When my right hon. Friend refers to the petition and the people who have changed their minds, he is referring to the same group of people who saw Mr. Pindling in respect of the Greater Abaco Council. I repeat what I said when I moved the amendment. It is no cause for gratification, no cause to buttress his case, but rather to weaken it, that a few people, owing to their personal circumstances, which to some extent I know and sympathise with, have had to crack, knuckle under and serve the purposes of Mr. Pindling. One or two have been brought as exhibits to London by Mr. Pindling on this visit to enable him to say "This is what I can do to people." The whole point is that this can be done. I do not blame them. I know what is at stake for them and why they have done it. That is why we feel that other people in Abaco must be protected.

Lord Balniel: I can understand the argument—whether I agree with it is irrelevant—which my hon. and learned Friend is putting. But that does not alter the fact that people who not so long ago, in 1971, were, with the Opposition, opposing independence, now, following the unanimous agreement of the conference and of the constitution, are participating in the efforts of the Bahamas Government and with the support of the Bahamas Opposition in trying to ensure

that the Bahamas will go forward as an integral unit towards its independence.
My hon. and learned Friend cast doubt on the value of petitions but in the same breath told us how a new petition was being organised in Abaco. We must be wary of the evidence provided by petitions. Before accepting such evidence, I should want to know a great deal about the circumstances in which the petition was signed and the identity of the signatories. I should want to know whether they were people of Abaco. I notice that the petition to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, which is now circulating, specifically invites the signature not only of people living in Abaco but of descendants of people born in Abaco.
Both the chairman and secretary of the new organisation, the Council for a Free Abaco, are reported to be resident in Nassau and not in Abaco.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I made this distinction when I moved the amendment. I gave the total figure and said that some were Abaconians at present resident in New Providence. But I added that, taking the strict definition of registered electors of Abaco, they constituted more than half the number who voted in the election and that the number was not complete.

Lord Balniel: I take the point, but one wants to examine these things with great care. For instance, according to the Government of the Bahamas, 320 signatories of the 1971 petition were resident in Nassau with Abaco connections, not residents of Abaco, 314 signatures were made by persons other than those named, some apparently signed their children's names and some were not even Bahamians.
But my general point is that, in circumstances like these, we must rely on the solid evidence provided by the ballot box at a general election. I have already indicated the views of the people of the Bahamas as expressed in that election.
The House will not be doing a service to the future of an independent Bahamas or to the relations between an independent Bahamas and this country if it elevates this case, which is deeply felt, of course, into a major issue. Britain will continue to have important interests,


including defence interests, in the Bahamas and the best way to protect those interests and also to protect the interests of the people living in the Bahamas, whether in the islands of Abaco or elsewhere, is to respect the wishes of the elected representatives of the Bahamian people.
My hon. Friends have developed their arguments with moderation and conviction. I fully recognise the problem which worries them. I recognise the difficulty raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) about defining what constitutes a nation. There is this long historical entity, stretch-

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

ing back for many hundreds of years. There is the outcome of the general election. Independence is the express wish of the Bahamian Parliament, which is the fourth oldest Parliament in the Commonwealth. Like the right hon. Member for Caernarvon, I express the profound hope that in advising the Committee to reject the amendment we are advising it in the best interests of the people of the Bahamas as a whole and of those living in the islands of Abaco.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 74.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[1.41 a.m.


Fell, Anthony
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Ronald Bell and Mr. W. R. Rees Davies.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Gray, Hamish
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Biffen, John
Heseltine, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patricx (Woodford)
Royle, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith. Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dean. Paul
Lane, David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclennan, Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Farr, John
Money, Ernie
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Fox, Marcus
Murton, Oscar



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Normanton, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nott, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Ordered, That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Fortescue.]

POLICE CONSTABLE THOMAS BROWN

1.51 a.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am glad of the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. All efforts have failed to get justice for my constituent. In addition to the matter being a personal tragedy and a financial loss to her, it has implications for the attitude of the Scottish Office to our police force.
The background of the matter is as follows. My constituent, Mrs. Angusina Brown, is the widow of Police Constable Thomas Brown who was killed at the age of 40 while on duty in a police vehicle on 31st August 1969. Apart from police and State pensions Mrs. Brown was left with no income and a family of two young children. She engaged solicitors, Messrs. Macnair, Clyde and Ralston of Paisley, to act on her behalf in an effort to secure compensation which would normally have been expected to be forthcoming. Despite the long and exhaustive efforts of those solicitors, no liability was accepted either by the police authorities or the Scottish Office.
Police Constable Brown was a passenger in a police patrol car which was being driven by a Police Constable Hamilton along the main Glasgow—Kilmarnock road. It left the road and both constables were killed. According to the opinion of counsel the evidence discloses nothing to account for the accident except negligent driving on the part of Police Constable Hamilton.
In view of the circumstances it was felt that as is normal in cases of negligent driving a claim for compensation would lie, and accordingly a claim was intimated by the solicitors on behalf of Mrs. Brown and family to the Chief Constable of the Renfrew and Bute Constabulary on 8th December 1969. That claim was forwarded by him to the Renfrew and Bute Joint Police Committee, which in turn communicated with its vehicle insurers, the Sun Alliance and London Group. It has been established, first, that there is no passenger liability clause in the vehicle insurance policy and, secondly that the Sun Alliance and London Group did not hold any employer's liability insurance in the name

the Renfrew and Bute Joint Police Committee.
The significance of the first point is that the driver was not insured for accidents which were caused through his negligence and which injured his passengers. Accordingly, if the driver were to be held liable in damages he alone, or his estate, would be liable to meet the damages awarded unless some other person could be found to relieve him or his estate of these damages.
That leads me to my next point, that of the Renfrew and Bute Joint Police Committee, which might conceivably be deemed the driver's employers, have been held not to be his employers and therefore do not require to hold an insurance policy covering the negligence of the driver. Further the chief constable is not the employer of the constables in his force. No relationship of master and servant existed between the constables and the chief constable or the joint police committee. Section 39 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, which makes a chief constable liable for damages in respect of the negligent actions of police constables, did not come into operation until 1st January 1970 by notice of statutory instrument. I am advised that the order does not operate retrospectively and there is a clear court of session authority to this effect.
Apart from the statute therefore no common law principle renders the chief constable responsible for a police constable's negligence. The net effect of all this is that Mrs. Brown has been left a widow with two young children without compensation which she would have got had the ordinary law of master and servant applied. The remedy against the deceased constable's estate is valueless as the estate is negligible.
Tributes are often paid in this House to the work of our police forces and I give my full assent to those. Is it not therefore grossly unjust that the policeman should have less rights in his ordinary duties than an ordinary member of the public in similar circumstances of accident? I call upon the Minister to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the widow of a policeman killed on duty receives the compensation which is her due by every standard of justice and fairness.

1.57 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) for taking the opportunity to raise this matter which is obviously of great concern to his constituents. It is a subject in which he has taken a considerable interest and about which he has expressed deep concern. Through him I obviously wish to express my sympathy to Mrs. Brown and her family because I can certainly appreciate the distress which an accident like this has caused. The hon. Member fairly described what took place and it might be helpful if I explained why the various actions were taken and what was the background to them. The position was as the hon. Member described in relation to the accident, and at the fatal accident inquiry in Paisley on 25th November 1969 the jury unanimously found that the constables died as a result of the injuries they had sustained in the accident, but declined to comment on the allocation of responsibility. That is an important point to note.
Lawyers acting for Mrs. Brown intimated a claim to the Chief Constable of Renfrew and Bute on 8th December 1969 and after some exchanges with him and with the Renfrew and Bute Joint Police Committee wrote to the Scottish Home and Health Department on 6th December 1971. The main point which they made—and it was a point with which the hon. Member has been much concerned this evening was that the Secretary of State had failed to bring into effect in due time the provisions now to be found in Section 39 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 which make a chief constable liable in respect of any wrongful act or omission on the part of any constable in the performance of his duty.
It may be helpful to the House if I first of all say a word about Section 39 and its origins. The first stage in what is a rather long and complicated story was the recommendation by the Royal Commission on the Police in its report published in 1962 that a police authority should be made liable for the wrongful acts of police officers. The Royal Commission, which heard conflicting evidence

from a number of interested parties before coming to this conclusion, was particularly impressed by the argument that where a particular constable complained of could not subsequently be identified a member of the public was unable to pursue a legal remedy, since proceedings could be taken only against an individual constable. The circumstances were slightly different from those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in this case.
On the basis of this recommendation provisions were made in the Police Act 1964 whereby chief constables were made liable for the wrongful acts of constables and for the police authorities to meet any costs awarded against chief constables. In relation to England and Wales this provision was introduced substantively in Section 48 of the Act. In relation to Scotland provision was made in paragraph 14 of the Seventh Schedule that the new liability should not begin to operate until the Secretary of State made an Order requiring its commencement. The reason for the deferment of the application of the new liability in Scotland was that there was concern in case the new provision would encourage fraudulent claims against chief constables for the mythical actions of unidentified officers. In Scotland we were also satisfied that the administrative arrangements which had been operating since 1933 had worked adequately.
These administrative arrangements are based on a recommendation in a circular of 1933 as to the procedure to be adopted by police authorities where civil or criminal proceedings are brought against police officers. The circular recommended that if the authority were satisfied that the officer concerned had acted in good faith it should undertake to meet the reasonable costs arising from assisting him. The circular gave an assurance that in these circumstances the reasonable cost of assistance so rendered would rank for police grant. The circular included provisions for an authority to refer a question to the Secretary of State if it was not satisfied that assistance should be granted and provided that the police officer concerned might also make representations directly. These provisions were not of course frequently invoked but there seemed good grounds in 1964 for saying that within their limited scope they had worked well.
The Scottish provision was introduced, as I have said, through the medium of paragraph 14 of the Seventh Schedule to the 1964 Act. It included the provision that the new liability should not be effective until the Secretary of State made an order for its commencement. The Seventh Schedule to the 1964 Act was referred for discussion to the Scottish Standing Committee, and though it considered some of its provisions in considerable detail, it did not discuss at all the provision relating to vicarious liability. It is, however, I think, a reasonable conclusion that if Parliament had intended the provision to become immediately effective in Scotland in 1964 it could quite easily have been so provided. Allowing the words to be written into statute, as they were, implied that there were reasons for delay.
In the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, which was a consolidation measure, paragraph 14 of the Seventh Schedule to the 1964 Act became Section 39.
In the event, no evidence came to the notice of the Secretary of State until 1968 which gave any grounds for believing that the administrative arrangements were not working well. The two cases which then arose related to the claims of widows of police officers who were killed while on duty by civilian vehicles, and it seemed possible that the circumstances of these cases might constitute a reason for bringing what was by then Section 39 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 into operation. Following consideration of the two 1968 cases the Scottish Home and Health Department had consultations with the Crown Office, the local authority associations and the Chief Constables (Scotland) Association about the desirability of early implementation of Section 39. There was some reluctance to allow the section to be activated at a time when it might have affected the results of the cases then before the courts and steps were taken to consider the effect of activation on any other cases which might be outstanding. In the light of all the circumstances it was eventually decided to bring Section 19 into operation on 1st January 1970 and this was done by the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (Commencement) Order 1969.
I have given these details about Section 39 because, as the hon. Member

said, some importance is attached to it. I agree with what I take to be his basic point that if the section had been operative at the time of the accident in which Constable Brown died, then the police authority would have been required to accept responsibility for any damages or expenses awarded against the chief constable. This might have encouraged Mrs. Brown to proceed with a court action: but of course nothing would have been payable unless the action succeeded—one must emphasise this throughout—or unless a settlement was reached. Mrs. Brown's agents have in fact entered an action against the widow of Constable Hamilton who was driving the car and it is quite clearly inappropriate for me now to speculate on where the responsibility for the accident lay, but we must be clear that the absence of the liability under Section 39 has in no sense been a bar to any action which Mrs. Brown's agents wished to raise: it has merely meant that the resources from which any successful claim must fall to be met are the resources of Mrs. Hamilton alone.
The hon. Member also spoke about the absence of specific insurance cover for police officers. This is a question which has been considered carefully from time to time over the years. The most recent consideration was by a working party of the Police Advisory Board for Scotland which was set up in 1969. The working party concluded, although the representative of the Scottish Police Federation dissented, that there was no case for singling out for special treatment the special hazards that arose from driving any police cars from the hazards to which police officers in many other circumstances were exposed. The working party had it in mind that provision was made for the protection of the interests of all police officers through the workings of the Police Pensions Code and through the provisions of the Police Regulations for maintenance of pay at its normal rate during any temporary incapacity. They also took into account the fact that special cover of the kind which had been proposed was not common in other local authority services even for employees whose work involved a great deal of driving, and having studied the accident evidence for a period of years they felt unable to conclude that driving in a


police vehicle was a particularly hazardous occupation.
The hon. Member has also mentioned the delay on the part of the Scottish Home and Health Department in dealing with the correspondence from Mrs. Brown's agents during 1972. We have sought during that correspondence to invite the Joint Police Committee for Renfrew and Bute to consider whether they would be prepared to extend the administrative arrangements which I have mentioned so as to enable them to stand behind Mrs. Hamilton in the event of an action being raised by Mrs. Brown. The Joint Police Committee after due consideration declined to do this. This was, in the event overtaken by the intimation from her agents that they had entered an action against Mrs. Hamilton.
I have a good deal of sympathy for Mrs. Brown, as I have for any widow or members of the family of any police officer in unfortunate circumstances such as these. I have looked at the case with considerable care and listened carefully to what the hon. Member says on behalf of Mrs. Brown. However, as he said himself, it is impossible now for the Secretary of State to make Section 39 operative from a date earlier than the date first chosen, namely 1st January 1970, and in the circumstances there is nothing further that I can do, in relation to that.
I have considerable personal sympathy for this case, but I regret there is nothing further we can do. At the same time, I must point out that of course Mrs. Brown is entitled to, and is receiving, in addition to the normal State pension, the police pension for which her husband was qualified and to which he had paid contributions. In these circumstances, the special hazards are to some extent covered by the special pension provisions for the police.
I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, despite the interest he has shown and the trouble he has taken in presenting this case, there is nothing more I can add to what he and Mrs. Brown's agents have already been told, but I hope that I have explained the precise background, not only to the administrative arrangements, which worked for a considerable time and did not appear to give rise to specific difficulties, but also to why Section 39 was not activated earlier and why it cannot be applied in this case.
I regret that I have not been able to give specific help, but I hope that I have at least clarified the complicated and complex issues involved in the background to this case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.